| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: Of course my right hon. Friend is right, but does he accept that a time may come when what one might regard as the irreducible elements of a true nation state--which the members of a nation state feel comfortable with and believe to be necessary--might be threatened by unwanted developments in the European Union? Is that a possibility?
Mr. Curry: The concept that my right hon. Friend suggests might be threatened. Equally, I would argue that a Europe without a European Union in it would feel infinitely more threatened by the developments that would have taken place in the post-war world--notably the absence of restraints on the development of Germany, an economic powerhouse with its 80 million people, and the probable preferred partner of the United States--than what threatens us within that framework. But that is a wider debate, which I should be delighted to continue with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Curry: I promised to be brief, and I am on my last paragraph. I want to give other hon. Members a chance.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry); 97 per cent. of the contents of his speech would be warmly endorsed by most Labour Members. It is a pity that we did not hear such speeches from him when he was a member of the Conservative Government. Nevertheless, it was good to hear one today.
I spoke in European debates several times in the previous Parliament, and I am struck by the difference in tone today, compared with those interminable hours in Committee on the Maastricht treaty. The heart seems to have gone out of the Europhobes. They have not got the enthusiasm--
Mr. Gapes:
That is an interesting question. The Europhobes do not seem to have the same enthusiasm for their cause any more. I suppose that, when people have fought a general election in which most of their colleagues were wiped out, although the previous Government said that they would stop the show--let us remember all those "show stoppers" that the former Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about when he came before us to give evidence during the previous Parliament--and when people see that, despite Mr. Sykes's millions, their party went down to humiliating defeat, that leads to some reassessment of the situation.
The tone has changed, but there are still a few individuals who, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), showed us, are still capable of artificial hysteria about this modest treaty. That was the description used by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
The Amsterdam treaty is modest, but it represents a major achievement--[Laughter.] Oh yes, it does. It is a major achievement, because the Conservative party told us that there would be no treaty--that they would lay down lots of clauses and conditions to stop the treaty, and make sure that it did not emerge.
The Tory press and the Europhobes in general also told us that the new Labour Government would not be capable of signing any treaty that was in Britain's interests, because our continental partners would walk all over us. On the contrary, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has just revealed, the treaty contains some important achievements, which are in the interests of our country.
Mr. Gapes:
The treaty is modest, but it is positive, too, and only a change of Government made it possible to achieve it. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order.
Mr. Gapes:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think I am capable of looking after myself.
The treaty was achieved by a Government who did not say, "We will reject everything that comes from across the Channel," but who said instead, "We will engage
positively with our partners, build alliances and work together for a better European Union, to prepare the basis for future developments that will come with the British presidency from January, and for the future enlargement negotiations which the treaty makes possible."
I always fail to understand how, if the Conservative party was really in favour of enlargement, it could adopt the strategy of saying that there would be no agreement. Agreement was necessary to unlock the process of enlargement. Moreover, if Conservatives were in favour of enlargement, why on earth did they oppose the extension of qualified majority voting in any area? That is a palpable absurdity. It is impossible to have any enlargement of the European Union without extending QMV to make the Union work effectively.
I think that the treaty has done enough to enable the enlargement process to begin, but not enough to make it possible to conclude that process successfully. Therefore, we shall have to return to the issue in the discussions that will result from the enlargement negotiations over the next few years.
I hope that, by that time, the Opposition will have had another think. If they really want enlargement to succeed, and the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and perhaps in time the Baltic states and other states, to come into the EU, they will have to recognise that an EU with 25 or 26 members cannot be the same as it is today,
In that process, we also need to examine the financing of the Union. That will involve difficult issues. Over the next few years, countries such as the Irish Republic, which are now net recipients from the European Union, will have to face the fact that, partly because of their own economic growth and partly because poorer countries will come into the Union, they will cease to be net recipients from Community funds.
Other countries will face similar problems on regional aid policy. It is important that we all recognise that some of the wealthier countries will have to make a contribution for enlargement to succeed. Part of what we need will come from common agricultural policy reform, which is so necessary. But that will not provide it all, and we shall have to face the fact that enlargement, which in political and security terms--and even in economic terms, in the long run--will be of great benefit to us, will have a short-term cost.
I was pleased with the statement a few weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which for the first time showed us the possibility of having a Government who said that in principle this country should be part of the European single currency.
In his important document, in which he set out the five economic conditions that must be satisfied to comply with the requirements of the single currency, the Chancellor also made it clear that in the meantime we would work positively to achieve greater co-ordination in ECOFIN among Finance Ministers within the European Union.
I believe that that development, too--building on the work in the Amsterdam treaty--will be of great benefit to us in the years to come. Clearly, the Government's statement a few weeks ago that there was no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU is of great significance, and most welcome. However, the longer we stay out of EMU, the more likely it is that the consequences will be politically damaging to this country.
In signing the Amsterdam treaty, we have begun to put Britain's relations with the rest of the EU on an even keel. We have begun to repair the damage caused by 18 years of anti-European rhetoric and policies.
Although the Labour Government's positive developments have prepared the ground for a successful British presidency, there are some worrying signs. The meeting of the French, German and Russian Governments in Strasbourg was a sign that we have to be careful to build on our positive relationships, both bilaterally and in a co-ordinated way with groups of other European Union member states.
It is not enough for us to wait for eventual membership of economic and monetary union, because in the meantime staying out of the process might have politically damaging consequences. We need to work at all levels to build relationships with our partners.
We need a strong European Union, both for the future of Europe and on the global stage. The way in which the United States Administration has used the World Trade Organisation to damage the interests of Caribbean banana producers in favour of the large multinationals that produce cheaper bananas in Latin America is cause for great concern. We need to have a strong collective European Union voice for those occasions when America pursues its self-interest, to the detriment of poorer countries.
In international trade negotiations, the European Union must be outward-looking, and consider the future not only of our continent but of many countries elsewhere, including many small island economies that have an historic association with us as part of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Forth:
Why does the hon. Gentleman assume that, if the United States, with its size and influence, pursues only its narrow self-interest, at the expense of others, the European Union would not be equally prone to doing exactly the same, with or without us?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |