| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said--no doubt Hansard will bear this out--"We have no choice." He did not suggest merely that we were there influencing affairs, as he subsequently claimed in his brief intervention; he said that this was determined and inevitable, and that we had no choice.
Mr. Bercow: As ever, my hon. Friend has been helpful in elucidating the truth, and distinguishing it from the way in which--moments after sitting down--Labour Members seek to rewrite history. My hon. Friend is an attentive observer of debates of this kind, and, as always, I am grateful to him for his voluntary co-operation in my speech.
Mr. Letwin: I thank my hon. Friend for his patience in giving way to me a second time. I hope that he will join me in adding a codicil to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said a moment ago. Could it not be said that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) suggested earlier that he would like to join the top table in order to be eaten?
Mr. Bercow: As ever, my hon. Friend makes his point beautifully and succinctly. Clearly, the experience of collectivism is always, everywhere and without exception to be preferred to that of isolation. The fact that being isolated in a particular circumstance might allow one to continue to live apparently does not spoil the beauty of being eaten as part of a collective.
Mr. Gapes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many other parties of the Conservative and Christian Democrat right in the whole European Union and all the applicant countries agree with him?
Mr. Bercow: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's thesis, although I am not sure which parties he has in mind.
Mr. Bercow: I am happy to answer. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who spends a great deal
of time outside the United Kingdom, is becoming rather excited, but I can tell the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) that most of his friends elsewhere in the European Union have the guts and integrity to admit that the position that they support means the achievement of a federal Europe. I am saddened that the hon. Gentleman cannot permit himself a similar candour.
Mr. Bercow: As you know, Sir Alan, I have been extremely generous in giving way to Labour Members. I shall not continue to do so, for the simple reason that I feel an irresistible urge to develop a couple of points without being interrupted by them.
I want to focus on two points. The first is the incompatibility, in article 1, between the commitment to the fundamental social rights of workers and the reference, a mere 284 words later, to economic and monetary union, including a single currency. When I have dealt satisfactorily with that, I shall move on to the subject on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, was especially eloquent--the pernicious new provision for European Union competence in respect of human rights.
Let me make the point explicitly, so that the Minister has no reason to ignore it as the debates progress. Is it a fundamental social right of an individual worker within the European Union to make a representation about the conduct of monetary policy under the single currency by the European central bank? Is it a fundamental social right of a worker to be able to enjoy an interest rate that reflects the economic circumstances of the country in which he or she lives, rather than the preferred wisdom of a group of bankers whom he or she does not elect and cannot remove?
We need to know from the Government whether they understand the difference and the inconsistency between the commitment, on the one hand, to the principles of democratic self-government, and the fact, on the other, that people will be entitled to no say--if the treaty proceeds and the single currency goes ahead--in the conduct of monetary policy.
It is simply beyond belief that right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are not aware of the incompatibility between those two positions. Many Opposition Members believe that the commitment to what are called social rights is as near to meaningless as not to matter. We do not see any advantage to the citizens of the United Kingdom from adoption of the social chapter or acquiescence in the social charter.
We see no merit in that, but we respect the fact that there are right hon. and hon. Labour Members who would see some merit in that. We cannot understand, however,
how they can claim to be committed to fundamental social rights, yet not understand the incompatibility of that position with support for a single currency. How can it be right that a single currency, with a single monetary policy, a single fiscal policy, a single taxation policy and, to all intents and purposes, a single economic policy should be imposed on the citizens of this country, without their knowledge, let alone their approval?
The Government cannot run away from the issue for ever. Elsewhere in Europe, the debate is conducted probably with equal intelligence, but with a degree of candour. Those who support the development of a federal Europe in countries other than the United Kingdom are prepared to say so.
I challenge the Minister to explain how he can continually say that he does not favour a federal Europe, yet can sign up with unbridled enthusiasm to a treaty that indubitably takes this country increasingly in a federalist direction. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to explain the mismatch between the rhetoric and the reality.
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's constituents were saying to him on the subject during the election campaign, but, when I was canvassing during the election--this has been the experience of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well--we consistently met people, day after day, who were fed up with the conflict between the commitment to a free, democratic and independent Europe, and the reality of an increasingly centralised and undemocratic European Union.
The Minister is drenched in the day-to-day party political conflict, but he must understand that I do not develop my argument on that basis. I am the first to concede that some people in my constituency were unwilling to vote Conservative on 1 May because they were insufficiently persuaded that we would resist the drive towards centralisation. If I had been accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe during that campaign, I do not doubt that I would have had even greater success in dissuading them from that view. However, some people were concerned about the Conservatives on that account.
The Conservatives are explicit and honest. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who courteously gave way many times, correctly acknowledged that we have been absolutely consistent. We say that we are for free trade, not federalism; that we favour co-operation not coercion; and that we believe in a European Union of independent and co-operating nation states, but are wholly and irrevocably opposed to a single European state. Because we oppose a single European state, we oppose moves in that direction. That is why we oppose the treaty of Amsterdam.
If the Minister wishes to advance an argument in support of federalism, the Committee will doubtless be fascinated to hear it. The Conservatives would disagree with him--my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) would dissect his argument brilliantly and ruthlessly--but we would hear him with respect. We would acknowledge the integrity of his argument and recognise that it is consistent with the policies for which the Government vote and for which Ministers negotiate. However, we cannot understand, and we surely cannot be expected to respect, the practical signature to, and consent for, federalist policies accompanied by a rhetorical denial that that is what the Government want.
I move from the subject of economic and monetary union--profoundly undemocratic as it is--to the provision on human rights to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred eloquently much earlier in the Committee's proceedings. The Minister must respond. Many hon. Members on Opposition Benches--and, I wager, a few on the Government Benches--are genuinely anxious about article F.1. [Interruption.] Chuntering from a sedentary position, as though he resembled the village idiot, does the Minster no good. That is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman must listen to the point and respond to it.
The reality is that the provision on human rights is pernicious. The reason can be stated simply: the provision is unnecessary. Member states are signatories to the European convention on human rights and to the United Nations charter. Member states within the European Union are united in their support for the principles of liberty, the rule of law and democratic self-government.
I challenge the Minister or the Foreign Secretary to answer--not abuse--the point that my right hon. and learned Friend has made: if a member state fails to respect human rights, surely it is better to expel that state from the European Union than say that a member state that falls foul of majority, at a given time, should be punished for so doing but still required to stick to its Community obligations. That is not an honourable or a defensible position.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |