| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): Last night I enjoyed a rare pleasure as a Member of Parliament: I read a bedtime story to my four-year-old daughter. My daughter is very interested in stories about monsters, and one of her favourite books is called "Where the Wild Things Are". That story refers to people sailing away for a year and a day and rushing back only to realise that they have been asleep.
I have listened to Conservative Members' contributions. It has been slightly more than a year and a day, and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has changed his constituency, but everything else in his speech was identical to last time. Sometimes one has feelings of deja vu because one is witnessing a total rerun of events during the 26 days in Committee on the Maastricht treaty.
We must recognise that Europe has moved on since then. I admit that the Amsterdam treaty is modest, and may not be what many people want. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who criticised the limited nature of the employment chapter. I believe that it is a first step, and must be built on in future. Nevertheless, there have been some changes since 1991 and 1992 and our debates in this place during the last Parliament.
One difference is that the people who contested elections with the support of Mr. Sykes's millions are now much reduced in number. That is partly because they have
advanced exactly the same line, the same arguments and the same simplistic views about the threats to this country. They still talk of fears of Britain being taken over--
Mr. Gapes:
I shall give way in a moment. They use words such as "appeasement" and "capitulation". They speak all sorts of nonsense about this very modest treaty.
Some people are expressing fears about developments in Europe--an American academic was quoted several times on the subject. It is interesting to note that some in the United States are becoming increasingly worried about what might happen if the European Union gets its act together and becomes more effective on the international stage. In terms of World Trade Organisation negotiations and a collective European voice on international matters, the European countries would be more effective if they worked together: they could not be played off against each other, and there could be no divide and rule.
Mr. Gapes:
I shall give way, but first I must develop this point.
In the past few months, we have witnessed an emergency in international markets generated by a crisis in Thailand that spread to Indonesia, Malaysia and to South Korea. There is no single currency involved in that region; there is no unified super state. What lesson can I learn from those events? If I were to take the worst case scenario--
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs)
rose--
Mr. Gapes:
I shall give way in a moment.
I could claim that it proves that nation states and separate currencies lead inevitably to instability and crisis. However, it does not prove anything of the sort--nor does the model developed by the hon. Member for Colchester--
Mr. Gapes:
The hon. Gentleman has changed his constituency also, but his views remain identical to those he expressed in the last Parliament.
Mr. Flight:
The lesson that the world has surely learnt from the crisis in Asia is that it is a great mistake to try to maintain a fixed exchange rate. The International Monetary Fund and leading economists have pointed out that, if those economies had permitted their exchange rates to move up and down with their cycles, most of the crisis would have been averted. If the whole of Europe, encompassing many different economies, has not only a fixed but a single currency, there will be greater mayhem than we have seen in Asia.
Mr. Gapes:
That is an interesting argument--presumably it is entirely consistent to apply it to events during the years when the Bretton Woods system worked well. There was economic recovery following world war
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) revealed an obsession with the European Court of Justice. He argued against the 48-hour week. Is it not a fact that many other European Union states have operated legislation of that kind without any difficulties? Do not the 48-hour provisions allow for exemptions for certain industries? Such rules take account of the diversity of industries such as travel and transport.
Yet the obsessions and the phobias within the Conservative party prevent Opposition Members from seeing reality: they must build a straw man and create a big issue. A Conservative Government would have made the 48-hour week a show stopper--a sticking point--in Amsterdam.
Mr. Letwin:
The hon. Gentleman is developing a most interesting line of argument. Presumably he will want to castigate the Prime Minister, who stated categorically that he opposed the further development of the powers of the European Court.
Mr. Gapes:
No, I do not wish to castigate the Prime Minister. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to praise the Prime Minister and the Government.
We went to Amsterdam committed to reaching an agreement and securing a treaty, without which the enlargement of the European Union would be impossible. If the Conservatives thought logically and rationally about the issue--rather than reading out the latest brief provided by some well-funded Euro-sceptic think tank--they would recognise that enlargement of the European Union, which they claim to want, and negotiations to secure enlargement will not happen until six months after the conclusion of the Amsterdam treaty.
If there had been no agreement at Amsterdam--that was the hope of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who wished to stand alone and be isolated in Europe; he wished to block agreements, because everyone was wrong except him--there would be no enlargement negotiations.
Dr. Palmer:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation is rather more sinister than he supposes? We have heard in European Standing Committee B that Conservative Members oppose the Opposition's official line, and oppose enlargement. That is yet another split within the Conservative party.
Mr. Gapes:
That is revealing information. It reflects the concern expressed recently by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who voiced fears about the Conservative party's continuing movement to the hard right since the election. The reality is that the European Union will succeed on the basis of practical co-operation, as it has done throughout its existence. The United Kingdom has a very important contribution to make to developing practical co-operation within the European Union.
Mr. Bercow:
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is an example of practical co-operation or of a commitment to democracy to prohibit member states of
Mr. Gapes:
It is not in the interests of any European Union state to be out of the discussion process about the future of economic and monetary union and development of the institutions that will lead to it. That is why our Government have said that, when the economic circumstances are right, in principle we should join that economic and monetary union. In contrast, the Conservative party would have taken a view that--for the foreseeable future, for 10 years, or never--we should not enter the process, and therefore have no influence in the shaping of it.
If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is concerned about such matters, he will presumably condemn the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for his important role in developing economic and monetary union in discussions that were held at the end of 1996.
Mr. Gapes:
I will give way to Conservative Members if they insist on intervening, but I should like to build my argument a bit--[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) want to intervene, I shall be happy to give way, but I should be grateful if he will let me develop the point a bit further.
Questions have been raised on European security, the NATO alliance and the former article J, which is now article 17. The shadow Foreign Secretary argued that the Amsterdam treaty weakens the commitment to NATO. An interesting paper from the Library points out on page 33 that the position is quite the opposite, and that, compared with the Maastricht treaty, some member states' commitment to NATO has been strengthened in the Amsterdam treaty. It states:
"the recognition of the latter has been strengthened. Whereas article J.4(4) stated that 'The policy of the Union in this Article . . . shall respect the obligations of certain Member States under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within this framework', the new article 17 inserts the wording 'which see their common defence realised in NATO".
Therefore, it is not true that our Government have signed up to weakening NATO. They have either maintained the current position, as in the Maastricht treaty, or perhaps even strengthened commitment to NATO, as stated in the paper from the Library.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |