| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Davies: I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, because I referred to him.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in a pantheon of success for the Conservative Government, but does he accept that the level of unemployment is almost double what it was when the Conservatives came into office in 1979?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the structural level of unemployment throughout
western Europe has increased substantially over the past 20 years. I hope that we shall have the support of the Labour party in taking the measures that are likely to reduce the structural level of unemployment in this country, particularly reform of the benefits system. So far, all that we have had from the Labour party is a lot of promises that would make the position far worse and increase structural unemployment in this country, particularly by introducing the minimum wage. I cannot think of a more disastrous and ill-conceived policy, either from the humane or from the economic point of view.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): It was interesting to hear a series of soundbites about Europe from the Opposition, rather than specific answers to specific questions. We must put the Labour party right on its view that Britain is alone in having doubts about the way in which Europe is going on economic affairs. All the evidence shows that throughout the continent there is a sudden awakening of concern and alarm about what the European Union is doing to people.
I can do no better than to quote from one of the splendid papers that I am sure Labour Members read, called The Guardian, in which it was reported today that 77 per cent. of the people of Germany are now opposed to economic and monetary union. That is not 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or merely a handful: the great majority of the people of Germany do not want it.
I was also interested to read in that article that a gentleman called Gerhard Schroder, who is an important person--he is a state premier--is planning to challengeMr. Kohl for the chancellorship next year on a Euro-sceptic platform. In today's Der Spiegel, which is an important magazine, he said:
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
I do not want to enter into a discussion about Mr. Schroder's politics, but he is a nationalist. His speeches in Germany are profoundly nationalistic, and he alarms many people, although he is in our sister party.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the early 1980s, every opinion poll showed that three out of four British people wanted to withdraw altogether from the European Community, as it then was? That was official Labour party policy in 1983. Does the hon. Gentleman recall which party won the election in 1983, when the British people, according to opinion polls, were wholly opposed to the European Community?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
That is the most depressing thing I have heard in a long time, and I have been in the House for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should
Mr. MacShane:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
No, get lost. I am trying to make a brief speech on important issues.
We must wake up to the fact that throughout the continent of Europe, people are realising that something nasty is happening to them. The hon. Member for Rotherham may laugh, but it is not funny for the 5 million people on the continent of Europe outside the United Kingdom who have lost their jobs in the past five years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) referred to our trade success. What about the facts? The plain fact is that since we joined the EC, we have had a deficit of £100,000 million, which is a lot of money. I wish that, instead of making European slogans, people would wake up to what is happening.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Rotherham, but I wish that people would listen to what the bunch of people who come along to these debates, in which no one is interested, have been saying for some time. We may not be terribly clever, but a small group of us--almost all of us are here now--voted against the exchange rate mechanism, because we believed that it was a recipe for mass borrowing and unemployment. People said that we were nuts and silly. We all know what happened: our pathetic Ministers pleaded that they were terribly sorry, that they could not borrow any more money or add to unemployment, and had to chuck the ERM.
We should realise what is happening in France. It is a lovely country, but more unemployment is being created every day because of the absurd nonsense of an artificial exchange rate. Surely Conservatives, of all people, accept that if we pretend that something is worth what it is not, we create distortions. As we see from the Red Book, the greatest problem of all is the distortion created by the agriculture policy, which does not allow food to find its normal price. Clever people in their blue ties, probably supported by public opinion polls, say, "Let us decide what the price of beef and sugar will be." All that we do is spend more and more each year on destroying food and forcing up prices for low-income households who have suffered enormously from the effects of the common agricultural policy.
When I hear representatives of the Labour party talking about "the Europe of the people", I ask them, in all sincerity--as people whose party used to justify democracy--what the blazes people in Europe can do if they think that the CAP is a foul protection racket that is costing enormous sums in waste and destruction, which gives them no entitlement and no rights. Destroying democracy is particularly bad for this country.
Let me make two brief points. The Minister said, "We must tell them what they are doing." I read through the articles in these wretched treaties: that is probably why I do not sleep well at night. The trouble with European treaties is that they can always be stretched a great deal further. According to article 103(4) of the Maastricht treaty, the European Union is not just interested in what
we are doing, and how brilliant the Government's economics are; it wants to find out whether our economic policies are inconsistent with the broad guidelines, and may jeopardise the proper functioning of economic and monetary union.
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that the Government have an obligation--as I believe they have, under the treaty--not only to run the economy in accordance with the principles that have been laid down, although that means deliberately creating unemployment, but to implement policies that will not in any way frustrate the operation of economic and monetary union? To some extent, our policies are doing that. Unemployment in all the other European countries is rising, while ours is falling, and our sound pound is probably having a frustrating effect. That is not helping those countries at all.
It is clear that, under another funny little clause--paragraph 7 of article 104c--Her Majesty's Government do not tell the House of Commons what the Europeans say about the information that we have sent to them. I think that that is the least that the House of Commons is entitled to: surely, when we send our annual information bulletin to Europe, we should be told what the Europeans say in reply to the Government. If, for example, they say to the Government, "We think that you are spending too much on this or that, or borrowing too much," or, "We think that your promises will lead to all kinds of problems," should not the House of Commons be told? I hope that the Government will give an assurance that, notwithstanding paragraph 7 of article 104c, they will endeavour to report back to Parliament any recommendations made by the European Council on the management of the United Kingdom economy. If the Minister can say yes to that, I shall be very grateful.
Will the Government also give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will seek to initiate a review within the European Union, of the merits of seeking economic advice from nations that have created an economic nightmare and massive unemployment in their domestic economies?
I have quite a lot to do with Sweden. Being a Tory, I have a massive number of important business interests, one of which is a directorship of a wonderful company called Ansvar Insurance. Ansvar Insurance insures total abstainers from alcohol, a cause that I have always promoted because I signed the pledge in Glasgow when I was six--and, like all Conservatives, I have kept my promise ever since. We do not pay the directors a great deal of money, but we give a great deal of support to the temperance movement.
I am astonished at what has happened in Sweden. The people there were told by the clever people--the equivalent of our silly Confederation of British Industry--"Let's vote yes in the referendum to safeguard employment and prosperity." Of course, the poor old Swedes voted yes, by 51 to 49 or thereabouts. I just wish that the EU enthusiasts would visit Sweden today. The situation there is tragic: everything is going wrong. Taxes are rising, public spending is being cut, and things have gone from bad to worse since the Swedes listened to the clever people and voted yes. Their friends from Norway go over to laugh at them, and to say, "You were daft." I am well acquainted with public opinion in Sweden, and
I know that the massive majority believe that getting involved with the European Union is the worst thing that they have ever done.
"You have to be able to stop a train which is running in the wrong direction."
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) shakes his head. He can have this article: that is what the bloke said, and that is the truth.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |