| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gapes: There is a big difference between the international relationships of the United States and those of the European Union. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries have historic links with us, and through the Lome negotiation process, we have always tried to take account of their interests. I believe that Britain and France in particular have a duty, because of international links with their former colonies in Africa and the Caribbean, to look to those wider interests.
There is a tradition, here and in other European Union countries, of contributing much more to international aid than the United States, which spends a far lower percentage of gross domestic product per head on aid than many European countries, including the Nordic countries, the Dutch and Britain. It is important for Europe to work collectively, because only in our collective strength can we act as a counterweight to American power. I refer not to military power but to economic weight and the political influence that goes with it.
The common foreign and security policy is one of the most important parts of the Amsterdam treaty. I was one of those who, in the previous Parliament, despite being strongly identified with being in favour of the European ideal, had strong reservations about some of the ideas emanating from France in particular about the role of the Western European Union in relation to the European Union.
I am very pleased that the Amsterdam treaty does not in essence go much further in that matter than the original Maastricht treaty. We are saying that there may be development of a common defence policy, but not of European Union common defence. The emphasis is still firmly on NATO, and I believe that that is right for European security and in relation to enlargement. There is no way, in my opinion, in which we could have an easy enlargement of the European Union to include countries of the former Warsaw pact if we mixed up defence in the process.
We have witnessed the controversies about NATO enlargement and the signals that the idea sends to the Russians. It would not be in our interests, and would cause great difficulties for those countries with a tradition of neutrality, such as Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden. Therefore, the outcome of the treaty is sensible.
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton):
To echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am pleased to contribute to the debate as another free spirit in the Conservative party, and to put on record my views and concerns about the treaty.
I begin with these words:
As Conservative Members have said, the danger for the House and the nation is that what may, as an individual treaty or a small piece of legislation, seem innocuous, may develop a pattern over the years that shows us that there are those in the European Union who have a different agenda--some hon. Members who have spoken tonight might well agree with them--from the concept of Europe as an alliance of independent nations.
From now on, we must measure against that background every treaty we sign, and every substantial negotiation in which we engage, because that is how we can decide whether we end up with an alliance or--as is clearly the ambition of many of our European partners--with a country called Europe. That is very different from an alliance of nation states.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, this was the first test of the Government's negotiating skill. The Prime Minister told the House when he announced the outcome of the European Council at Amsterdam:
The Labour party's manifesto flagged up its agenda. It said:
I represent a seat in the west country. It is not a coastal seat, but fishing is of importance not only to the people who go out to sea but to the much wider community. Communities in the south-west of England are dependent on the fishing industry. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said that the previous Government had failed to deal with the problem of quota hoppers. This very House introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which sought to give it powers to interpret the fishing rules, as applied by the treaty of accession. The Act sought to ensure that we had something to which the Labour party should give recognition.
Labour Members use the words "fairness" and "justice" a lot. Fairness and justice in British fishing policy is non-existent, as a result of the way in which the common fisheries policy has turned out. That is contrary to what the British Government believed they were negotiating in the treaty of accession.
The European Court of Justice did not find in our favour. It overturned legislation passed by the House to protect our fishing interests in a fair and just way. That was why the previous Government took such a robust stand. They saw the treaty of Amsterdam as an opportunity to correct that injustice, and bring back some fairness for our fishermen. Yet we have heard that fisheries were not even debated at Amsterdam.
The Foreign Secretary did not explain today why the Labour Government ditched their policy. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will explain why quota hoppers are no longer a matter of importance to the Government.
What were the fishermen expecting? They had every expectation that Amsterdam would resolve the problem of quota hopping. All that the Foreign Secretary came back from Europe with was a piece of paper which simply reiterated the law as we understood it.
Mrs. Browning:
Peace in our time, as my right hon. Friend says. That was the outcome of the Government's negotiations on fishing.
The Spanish were able to take advantage of the Government in the small hours of the morning, when the British seat was unoccupied because people had gone home thinking that Europe kept normal hours. Whatever the reason, the Government were not represented when Gibraltar was discussed. The Spanish must have gone home from the negotiations thinking that they had had a pretty good outing. They got our fish, and now there is a big question mark over our powers to negotiate on and protect Gibraltar.
The measures on fishing and on Gibraltar clearly show that there is more to the treaty of Amsterdam than the large issues to which the Foreign Secretary tried to restrict us in his opening remarks. He admitted that the mix-up over Gibraltar was a misunderstanding.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) gave the House some extremely important news about tapes in the possession of the Dutch presidency. I ask those on the Treasury Bench to ensure that, in the reply to the debate tonight, we hear exactly what action the Government intend to take to apprise the House of the situation, now that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to the Floor of the House.
I have some concern about the views expressed by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) in respect of that part of the treaty which refers to the merging of the European Union and the Western European Union. I have spoken about the agenda that others are following. It may not be the agenda that all of us in the House wish to follow, but it exists. The agenda of some countries is not a pragmatic division between NATO and the EU in defence matters.
The Foreign Secretary admitted to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 4 November:
"Our vision of Europe is of an alliance of independent nations".
Those are the words of the Labour party manifesto for the general election. It seems to me, from comments by both Opposition and Government Members, that, in considering the ways in which the Bill affects us as a nation state--as it affects our sovereignty--we cannot take the Amsterdam treaty in isolation .
"We . . . promised to bring a fresh and constructive approach to Europe and to the negotiations."--[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 313.]
That bears more careful scrutiny when we consider some of the announcements that have been made, and some of the issues that have been completely neglected.
"We will seek a thorough overhaul of the Common Fisheries Policy to conserve our fish stocks".
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told "The World at One":
"We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes on fishing policy in the British interest".
Labour Members have suggested tonight that the Conservatives were somehow wrong to flag up well before the Amsterdam conference their concerns about quota hopping and the fisheries policy. We considered it high on our agenda. However, even during the election campaign, the Labour party thought that the issue was sufficiently important for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to refer to it on prime time radio. That all dissipated quickly after 1 May.
"The ambition of some of the countries at Amsterdam was to absorb the WEU in order to bring European security and defence identity within the EU."
So it is clear that an agenda different from the Amsterdam treaty is running. We should not be cavalier and disregard that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |