| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robin Cook: I am very interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. Does he now think that the treaty does not pose a threat to the national interest or the future of Britain? Has he abandoned that criticism?
Mr. Howard: Of course the treaty poses a threat to the national interest. If the social chapter is used to impose burdens on British business which will damage our competitiveness and destroy jobs, of course that is a threat to British interests. That must be clear to all.
What we were discussing in the earlier exchanges were some of the constitutional implications which were originally on the agenda for Amsterdam, but not all of which have come to pass. Some have, and they are bad enough.
We opposed a new employment chapter that would expose British businesses to new costs. Labour signed up to a new employment chapter extending the role of the European Union into determining employment policy. We were pledged to win Britain an exemption from the damaging effects of the working time directive. Labour did not get a deal; in fact, the Government did not even try.
We opposed further extension of qualified majority voting. Labour signed a treaty that removed the veto of member states by extending QMV to 15 new areas. We said no to giving the European Parliament more power at the expense of Westminster. Labour agreed to give the European Parliament the power of veto in 23 new areas.
We pledged to curtail the excesses of the European Court of Justice. Labour abandoned our attempts to reform the workings of the court, and signed a treaty that does much to extend the remit of the European Court of Justice and nothing to reform it.
We pledged that we would insist on measures to stop quota hopping by foreign fishing vessels, and Labour came back with a worthless letter.
Finally, and perhaps most disappointing of all, we considered enlargement our key priority at Amsterdam; Labour signed a treaty that did nothing at all to further the cause of enlargement.
Mr. Dalyell:
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard:
No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
The treaty is a wasted opportunity. It is also a victory for those who want a deeper, not a wider, Europe. The Government view our Parliament's powers with disdain. Since taking office, they have consistently whittled them away, parcelling them off to assemblies elsewhere in Britain, to Europe, to the Bank of England and to an unelected judiciary.
We Conservatives are proud of our Parliament. We believe that the United Kingdom is immeasurably greater than the sum of its parts; that power should be vested in
those who are democratically accountable, not in unelected officials; and above all, that Europe will succeed only as a union of independent nation states.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
So awful is the treaty which has been described that perhaps the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), were he still in government, would have vetoed it. Had he done so, he would have kept the United Kingdom in isolation from Europe, with enormous damage to British interests.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the House to descend from the fantasy politics which we have just heard and to examine the realities of the European situation and of the modest treaty before us. The treaty disappointed the aspirations of the Europhiles and the fantastical fears of the Euro-sceptics. I would have feared for our country, had the right hon. and learned Gentleman still been in office, with his worries of "them" ganging up against "us". If the previous Government had vetoed the treaty, that would have postponed for a substantial time the enlargement of the European Union, which he claims to espouse. The treaty is modest, and amounts to a tidying up of the Maastricht inheritance. It realistically reflects the mood of our times.
I turn first to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, whose report is before the House. We had hoped to produce a full report for the benefit of the House, as our predecessors did with the Maastricht treaty. Part of the problem was the Committee's late formation towards the end of July. The Government's decision to hold the Bill's Second Reading so soon meant that we were not able to provide that service to the House. We are not convinced that, if they had willed it, the Government could not have scheduled the Second Reading after the Christmas recess; the House could then have had the benefit of the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
In the event, the Committee was able to meet only my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last Tuesday and the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of Gibraltar on the following day. The reports of those sittings are now before the House. We met the Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition of Gibraltar because those senior politicians had expressed concerns on behalf of Gibraltar in their memorandums.
The result in practice is that prima facie there is a veto available to Spain over the extension of the Schengen agreement, which has particular relevance for Gibraltar, and, further, that the British Government might have to choose between our own perceived interests and those of Gibraltar. However, since there is no prospect of any British Government joining the Schengen acquis in the foreseeable future, that dilemma is unlikely to arise in practice. The events of 18 June were most unfortunate. I should add in parenthesis that both the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of Gibraltar made accusations against both this Government and our predecessors about failing to look after Gibraltar's interests in general. Those allegations must be examined carefully.
To understand the significance of the treaty, it must be viewed in context. In his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the treaty
In essence, I submit that the treaty was based on modest aims and resulted in modest gains. Clearly, the response of the Conservative party shows that it has learnt nothing from the isolation of the previous years which so damaged our interests in Europe. Indeed, Lord Howe described the Conservatives' stance on EMU as
Sir Teddy Taylor:
Could the clause, which provides, of course, for legislation to be made--I tried to ask the Foreign Secretary this question--be used in the European Court of Justice for actions by groups?
Mr. Anderson:
No--partly because of unanimity, partly because of the safeguard of the two thirds majority in the European Parliament, and partly, of course, because it would have to go to the European Court of Justice as well. Anyone concerned with human rights should see it as a safeguard, a protection, in respect of the European
Sir Teddy Taylor:
I am so sorry, but I asked a different question. Could it be used by the Court?
Mr. Howard:
I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the European Court of Justice was a safeguard in relation to this clause, but it has absolutely no involvement at all. The decision is taken entirely by other member states.
"demonstrates that the high tide of integrationism in Europe was reached at Maastricht and that high tide is now at something of an ebb."
He described that as a "major step forward". By contrast, other commentators, such as Ian Davidson in the Financial Times, remarked with sadness on the same point:
"the integrationist model of the European Union is approaching the limit of what is politically acceptable to the nation state."
It is not as simple as that: a dynamic debate will continue about the frontiers of the nation state and the supranational entity. Clearly, the mood governing of the post-Maastricht agenda is, in part, a revolt by the people against those elites who went beyond what the people could accept at Maastricht. There is now greater caution and greater pragmatism, which were enshrined in the Amsterdam treaty. The protocol on subsidiarity, to which my right hon. Friend properly alluded, would not have been possible at Maastricht. Similarly, in Amsterdam, even Chancellor Kohl stood against certain extensions of qualified majority voting, partly because of his compact with the Lander over economic and monetary union. That would not have been possible at Maastricht.
"a purpose-free piece of ideological posturing."
His preface to a pamphlet issued by the Action Centre for Europe says:
"A worrying number of Conservatives have become trapped in a damaging mind-set, believing that creating artificial divisions and whipping up synthetic indignation on Europe can deliver political dividends. It cannot."
That is the world of fantasy politics which we have heard from the Opposition today. A good example was their exaggeration in respect of the human rights clause. The clause has a simple aim: to ensure that there is a guarantee that future members of the European Union--there are no anxieties about existing members--continue to respect human rights or face potential sanctions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |