| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I think that "firstly" will do.
Mr. Casale: I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to see debate being conducted politely, and I assure him that "claptrap" is not a term that I would use. Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of social dialogue. They have identified it as a means of providing the important rights which I have described--including security for working people--and as a route to higher productivity through good relations in the workplace.
I welcome the emphasis on jobs and employment in the Amsterdam treaty. The Government are committed to creating employment for young people--and there is a high level of commitment to that goal in my constituency also. It seems right and proper to establish mechanisms and a framework that enable us to work with our European partners to increase employment in Europe.
The Amsterdam treaty reaffirms that the European Union must create jobs for the peoples of Europe. It also reaffirms the priority of employment creation which was set at the Essen summit in 1994. It anchors that commitment to employment in a new employment chapter and to a rolling debate in the Council of Europe. The jobs summit to be held this month will take that process further forward.
It is in the interests of the British people to build a people's Europe and, to that extent, I welcome the Amsterdam treaty's emphasis on openness and transparency. I welcome also the increased accountability of European bureaucrats and of decisions taken by qualified majority voting in the Council which is reflected in the increased powers given to the European Parliament in the area of co-decision making. I refer again to the comments of Commissioner Brittan, who, in his article this morning, said that this extension of co-decision making was the right way to go.
I welcome the renewed emphasis on European citizenship and remind the House that, as a result of the single market and the freedom of movement that it allows, a very large number of European nationals live in Britain today. I welcome the fact that they will be able to participate fully as citizens in the local elections and in the London referendum next May. When talking about European citizenship, it is important to emphasise that, although the treaty states that European citizenship is
important and that it should complement national citizenship, perhaps more can be done to enforce the rights of European citizens, in particular with regard to voting in local and European elections. Perhaps it would be wise for the Government to see whether there is some possibility of a national campaign to make those rights more widely known to the large community of European nationals in this country, so that those rights can be exercised to the full.
Sir Leon Brittan recognises that Europe needs to be outward-looking. It needs to be a major player on the world stage--an objective which we must all keep in mind at the present time. That objective was taken forward by the Amsterdam treaty, while setting a benchmark for standards and values that must be shared by the countries of eastern and central Europe that are seeking to join the European Union at a later date. The treaty emphasises once again the important continuing role that the European Union plays in ensuring stability and international peace.
In many ways--culturally, historically and geographically--despite the comments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, we are part of Europe.
Mrs. Browning:
I represent a Devon seat. It is not uncommon for those of us who live close to the English channel to refer to the other side as "over there".
Mr. Casale:
It is also not uncommon for many people to complain about the people living over there, and then in the summertime to jump on a ferry at Plymouth and go off to France or other places in Europe to enjoy their holidays.
We must recognise that we are part of Europe, that we must work with Europe constructively, and the Amsterdam treaty--I congratulate and applaud the Government on the way in which they negotiated it--is a vital part of that process.
It is time that we sent a positive signal from this place to our European partners--one that says that we want to work together to construct a strong and stable Europe, a Europe fit for the peoples of Europe with their proud and diverse traditions, a Europe based on shared values, decent standards in the workplace, a Europe actively working to create jobs.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon):
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like other hon. Members, I have detected a difference in the tone of the speeches being made today. Those of us who still bear the scars of the passage of the Maastricht treaty realise that, although we have heard some pretty sceptical comments from hon. Opposition Members, they cannot summon up
Two former Ministers have argued passionately against the Amsterdam treaty, saying that it is another incremental approach on the road to greater European Union, but they sat in a Government who passed the Maastricht treaty. We can value their speeches, but bearing in mind that Maastricht took us further down the road to European integration than Amsterdam ever could, how could they have sat in that Government with a quiet conscience?
I shall go further: those of us who have followed our European debates will have recognised that Maastricht was a significant milestone on the road to greater European Union. I fully supported that approach. We had many vigorous debates in the House about it.
It is good to remind ourselves that Maastricht happened at a particular time in European history: at the end of the cold war and when the Berlin wall came down. We recognised that the European Union, as it became, needed to consider some of the political implications of greater European co-operation--an issue that Europe had largely forgotten since the catastrophic failure to come together in the 1950s. A draft of a common European defence policy came before the treaty of Rome. We all understand why it was such a catastrophic failure.
After the cold war, after the opening of new relationships in Europe, it was right that the European Community considered what that new partnership should be. Maastricht was a first attempt to look at some of the political implications, with the creation of the two pillars--foreign affairs and defence, and home affairs and justice.
Some of us argued, even during the Maastricht debates, that the creation of those pillars would set up bodies that would be difficult to organise. The common foreign and defence policy had no permanent secretariat, so when Ministers from each member state met to discuss foreign policy, the meetings would often have no coherence and no focus, and a subsequent meeting would often go over the same ground as the previous one.
One of the issues that brought home to me the failure of the intergovernmental approach was our experience during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We can argue why Europe failed to deal properly with that conflict, but because of a lack of a common approach on foreign policy, individual member states recognised parts of the former Yugoslavia unilaterally. Germany recognised some states. The United Kingdom and France disagreed with that and later considered other forms of recognition.
While Europe was standing idly by, watching the conflict develop, the awful phrase ethnic cleansing entered the dictionary and our consciousness. The failure of the European Union to deal with that conflict properly is a stain on our collective conscience. Europe failed the people of the former Yugoslavia because we had no collective, coherent approach.
Although I disagree with many of the points that have been made tonight by hon. Members who will oppose the treaty--I do not believe that we should be looking for a common defence policy in the traditional sense--there are areas in which we can co-operate. It was a mistake not to take at Amsterdam that little step further in terms of the
Petersburg tasks in the European Union. I believe that it would have been perfectly possible, within the treaty, to accept the European tasks as the only basis on which we should have European co-operation under the collective NATO umbrella. In my view, the experience of the former Yugoslavia is a lesson that we failed to learn in Amsterdam.
Mr. Keith Simpson:
Can the hon. Gentleman explain how, if there had been some form of common foreign policy, we would, in practical terms, have squared the very different but heartfelt approaches of the German Government and our Government?
Mr. Jones:
The real problem was that there was no concerted European action at the outset. The message driven home to the conflicting parties in the former Yugoslavia was that Europe could take no concerted action. The problem then was that conflict spilled from region to region in the former Yugoslavia because those involved knew that there would be no concerted European action against them.
I believe that it was a mistake for the Germans to recognise one part of the former Yugoslavia so quickly. That, too, gave them the feeling that there would be no European intervention. I believe that it is necessary for us, on occasion, to come together to deal with conflict on our own borders. I also believe that it is very important for us to recognise that the people of Europe are now demanding greater democracy, greater openness and greater accountability in the institutions of the European Union.
We must recognise that elements of the Maastricht treaty went ahead of public opinion in Europe. We needed to take stock in Amsterdam; the problem with the Amsterdam treaty is that it failed to tackle the fundamental issue--the fact that, while we have democratic institutions in the European Union, there is a failure to give it democratic accountability and legitimacy.
The difficulty is that, although Members of Parliament and people elsewhere argue that power is being transferred to unelected bureaucrats and unaccountable bankers in Europe, people using what amount to the same argument say that we should not give more powers to the European Parliament. They cannot have it both ways. If we believe in democracy and accountability, the European Parliament is the vehicle to deliver that--in part.
We should welcome the fact that the European Parliament is given more powers of co-decision. We are streamlining the legislative process there and making it easier for decisions to be reached between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I consider that a worthwhile measure in the Amsterdam treaty.
I also believe that the argument about qualified majority voting is being used politically by the opponents of further European integration. I understand the frustration of Ministers who must go to the European Union to argue the case--points are being argued in a different way in the House--but, in international negotiations, it is always a question of a trade-off. It is a question of reaching alliances with other people. It is not always a case of sticking to a veto, of standing isolated and thinking that that will confer benefits; we must always consider ways of reaching an accommodation with those with whom we are negotiating.
I live on the island of Anglesey, which is very close to the Republic of Ireland. I know the way in which the people of the Republic have negotiated their way into the European Union--to their immense benefit. When I look today at the gross domestic product per head of people in Southern Ireland and that of people in west Wales, I know who has had the best deal out of the European Union and the negotiations during the past 20 years or so. It certainly is not the people of west Wales: it is the people of Ireland, who have negotiated considerable benefits for themselves.
My final point is very important. At any rate, it is important for me--representing Plaid Cymru in the debate--to mention subsidiarity. I listened carefully to what Conservative Members said about the need for subsidiarity to be meaningful. I could sympathise more with that line of argument if they accepted subsidiarity in its true European sense, which is that there are different levels of decision-making for different purposes. There is, of course, the European Union level; there is the level of the member state; and there is the level of the regions and nations of Europe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |