| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Marlow: Shall we just take our orders from Brussels?
Mr. O'Brien: I tell the hon. Gentleman that Labour opposes a unitary, federalist or centralised European state--a sort of united states of Europe. We seek co-operation between member states, based on a common enterprise. We believe that subsidiarity can decentralise power. We do not believe that the European Union presents any threat to our culture, our institutions, our language or our character.
Labour believes that the Maastricht treaty should remain a treaty between independent nations that pools sovereignty by agreement, rather than represent the consolidation of some sort of European super-state. We want an inclusive union. We prefer greater subsidiarity to the large-scale extension of the competence of any of the European Union institutions.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien:
I have said that I will not give way, for the reasons that I have stated.
There is no danger of a European super-state--the different cultures and national histories in Europe are too strong. I agree with the Prime Minister's assertion that to see the single currency as a step towards federalism is "unrealistic". The dire warnings of some Euro-sceptics are often hyperbole bordering on the absurd. There is and ought to be a debate about the nature of Europe, whether there should be a single currency and the relationship between the nation states and the Union; but the terms of that debate as reported in our national media have so far produced more heat than light.
The fact is that Labour's position on the single currency is almost entirely the same as that of the Chancellor--I cannot say that it coincides with the Cabinet's view, because members of the Cabinet seem to have several different versions of the policy. Both the Chancellor and the Labour party are pro-European, but not federalist. We are not opposed in principle to a single currency, but we understand the practical difficulties. The Chancellor and Labour disagree on the social chapter, but we are not far apart on monetary union.
Mr. Marlow:
What about Ted Heath?
Mr. O'Brien:
The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position about the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I was delighted to hear--
Mr. Oppenheim:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien:
Let me respond to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow); then I shall give way.
I was delighted to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup at the weekend that he, as the last but one Conservative Prime Minister,
endorses Labour's views on the social chapter, devolution and the minimum wage. Both the Chancellor and Labour want to keep this country's options open on a single currency.
Mr. O'Brien:
I wonder whether the Minister can say that he is not a Euro-sceptic, and that he agrees with his Chancellor on the Government's policy. I suspect that he will not.
Mr. Oppenheim:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, 16 minutes into his opening remarks in a one-and-a-half-hour debate. He said earlier that the Government's position on economic and monetary union was confused and confusing, and he has just stated the Labour party's policy. In the debate on this subject almost exactly a year ago, he said:
Mr. O'Brien:
The Chancellor has repeatedly said--
Mr. Oppenheim:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien:
Will the Minister sit down and let me answer his question?
The Chancellor has repeatedly said that he does not oppose the single currency in principle, and I say that we have made our position clear all along. The Labour party and I take the view that we are not opposed in principle to a single currency. I understand that that is the view of the Government, and it is the view of the Labour party.
Mr. Oppenheim:
I will read the words again carefully, so that the hon. Gentleman can give a straightforward answer about whether it is still the Labour party's policy and his own view. He said:
Mr. O'Brien:
Is it not also Government policy? Is it not the Government's policy to say that they are not opposed to a single currency in principle? The Labour party is saying clearly that we are not opposed to a single currency in principle. There are many advantages to a single currency, such as reducing transactional costs, stability in the currency in the long term, and many others.
We must also be aware of the practical difficulties. The Labour party has set out quite clearly the fact that there are some practical difficulties that we have to bear in
mind. Labour has made it clear that any decision will not only involve applying the Maastricht criteria: does the Minister agree that there should also be British criteria?
Let me set out the criteria clearly. What is to be the likely impact on investment by British firms in Britain and Europe and on inward investment into Britain? What would be the effect on our financial services? Are the various European countries at different stages of the economic cycle, and what impact would that have on our economy? Is there sufficient flexibility to respond to any problem that may arise? What would be the impact upon employment? The jobs issue is crucial for Labour; is it crucial for the Government? Unfortunately, so far the European Union has talked about employment but has not done enough.
Europe cannot be well placed to be a successful union on the backs of 17 million unemployed. Our vision is not of a Europe of bureaucrats or politicians, nor just of a Europe for business--although we want business to succeed and prosper. Our vision of Europe is of a community for ordinary people. That means jobs for people.
We want workers to have rights at work, and that is why we will sign the social chapter and join our European partners in having a minimum wage. That is why we have made it clear how we will determine what is in Britain's national economic interest. We will take a hard-headed look at the economic practicalities of the single currency and how it will affect the ordinary people of Britain.
Mr. Charles Kennedy:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien:
I have said repeatedly that I am trying to make progress. The Minister has already suggested that I am taking too long.
Mr. O'Brien:
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time. I am about to finish.
Mr. Kennedy:
I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, and, although I do not disagree with the general pro-European sentiments being expressed, I am less than enamoured with the manner in which they are expressed. The hon. Gentleman set out the British criteria under a putative Labour Government. Is it the Labour party's negotiating stance for the completion of the intergovernmental conference that those criteria should be part and parcel of any subsequent decision that is taken?
Mr. O'Brien:
The single currency issues will be determined apart from the IGC.
Mr. O'Brien:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clarify his question, because I do not understand it.
Mr. Kennedy:
Perhaps I am not making it clear. Although the single currency issue is not folded into the IGC discussions, is the hon. Gentleman saying that
Mr. O'Brien:
I think that the hon. Gentleman is still, to some extent, confusing the single currency issues with the IGC.
We are setting out criteria by which we will judge whether to enter a single currency, and, if so, at what time. That is the purpose of setting out the criteria. I still do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's question, but perhaps he will talk to me afterwards, when I can explain the difference between the IGC and the single currency.
"Unlike the Government, Labour has a clear principle to guide it".
He also said:
"The position of the Labour party on European economic and monetary union is quite clear. We approve the principle of economic and monetary union".
Does he still stand by that statement?
"The position of the Labour party on European economic and monetary union is quite clear. We approve the principle of economic and monetary union".--[Official Report, 12 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 772.]
Does the hon. Gentleman stand behind those words? Is that still Labour's policy?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |