| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Radice: One of the problems with the Conservative approach to European matters is the hyperbole of the language used. Nowhere has that been more true than in what Conservative Members have said about the Amsterdam treaty. Before the election, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who was then Home Secretary, said that the agenda for the Amsterdam negotiations would undermine the nation state. Treaties are based on agendas, so the right hon. and learned Gentleman was implying that signing up to the treaty would undermine the nation state. Clearly it would not, and even the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had to row back from that ridiculously exposed position, which he hoped would win the general election for the Conservatives.
I admire and like the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and he spoke attractively today. However, he also used hyperbole. The Conservative party will not recover its health unless it sees the world as it really is, but Conservative Members go in for gross exaggeration on any European issue. On a whole series of previous amendments, they said that the social chapter would lead to the undermining of our competitive position, but one has only to read the chapter to see clearly that it is fairly innocuous.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Radice:
No, I do not want to tempt myself down that path. I must return to the subject of the amendments.
The Conservative party has grossly overestimated the impact of Amsterdam. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, it is very modest: a mouse of a treaty. It is so modest that I am surprised that he voted against it; perhaps it was a tactical decision, which may have been sensible from the point of view of his position in his party.
The treaty does not undermine the nation state. There was some limited extension of qualified majority voting--
Mr. Swayne:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Radice:
No, I want to finish what I am saying.
There was a limited extension of qualified majority voting which was matched by a limited increase in the co-decision powers of the European Parliament. Those go together, because the best way to deal with the problem of accountability that arises with qualified majority voting is through the European Parliament.
I do not see anything particularly wrong with qualified majority voting in many areas, because I do not believe that Britain will always be in a minority of one on every issue. The problem with the Conservative party is that its assumption is that we shall never have any friends in the European Union, and that those awful continentals are so terrible and look at everything in such a totally different way from us that we shall never be able to form alliances with them.
That was a gross exaggeration even under the Conservative Government, who did occasionally find some people who would vote with them; but the new Labour Government has several obvious partners and is acting with them for the good of Europe. That is the sensible way in
which to proceed. Of course there are some key areas in which we should retain the national veto; any Government would do that for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Radice:
I said "for the foreseeable future"--I thought that the Conservative party was rather enthusiastic about that formula.
The key areas include taxation, own resources, foreign policy, defence and immigration. It may be that in my son, daughter's, grandson's or granddaughter's time, there will be some change in one of those areas--I cannot foresee the future--but as things stand, that is how we conduct things.
If one wants to tackle fraud, it is sensible not to give individual nations vetoes with which they can stop Europe as a whole doing something about it. If fraud is so important--the Conservative party clearly believes that it is, and so do we--that is an obvious area for qualified majority voting.
Similar arguments are relevant for research spending and for greater openness in the European Community. Most people would like greater openness, so we do not want one country blocking procedures to develop it. That is a sensible argument, and I do not understand why the Conservatives make such a song and dance about it. The Conservative party is so ideological that it cannot see things as they are.
Mr. Swayne:
Regardless of whether it is ideological or understandable, will the hon. Gentleman accept that when the previous Prime Minister said during the general election campaign that the then Leader of the Opposition would give up the British veto in six areas the right hon. Gentleman denied it--and then gave it up in 16 areas?
Mr. Radice:
That does not really fall together with the charge that we made concessions before we actually started to negotiate. We set out our negotiating objectives because we believe that it is a good thing to work together in some areas, even if the Conservative party thinks that it is a bad idea to work together with any continentals on any issue. We happened to think that there were sensible objectives.
Mr. Brady:
I fear that the hon. Gentleman is confusing working together from choice with--as can happen with QMV--being compelled to do something against one's wishes.
Mr. Radice:
It is true that it is possible that fraud might be committed in our country and we might say that we would like to resist QMV. I believe that it would be a sensible thing for the good of Europe for the articles about fraud to apply on a qualified majority vote. I do not hold the view that any qualified majority voting is, per se, a bad thing.
In the days of the Maastricht treaty, Conservative Members expressed some concern about QMV. In the days of the Single European Act, the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, occasionally said the kind of things that we have heard from Conservative Members
tonight. She was a practical person, however, and she realised that if one wanted to create a single market one had to have QMV because she did not want a situation in which a country could block progress in areas vital to this country. Qualified majority voting has probably benefited this country far more than any other country on the single market issue.
Mr. Radice:
I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is a veteran of such debates.
Mr. Cash:
The hon. Gentleman may care to bear in mind something that has not been mentioned so far in the debate: QMV in relation to public health, particularly in relation to the BSE crisis on which we had a statement today. Does he really believe that it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to have QMV, as expressed in an article that appeared a couple of months ago in the Health Service Journal, which quite clearly suggests that there would be serious implications if one extended QMV to BSE? We would then never be able to get out of the current crisis.
Mr. Radice:
Once again, the hon. Gentleman is using hyperbole. The problem about the hon. Gentleman, whose speeches I have listened to with great attention over many years, is that he invariably exaggerates the position. Even when he has a good case, he lets it down because he always make the situation sound so terrible. It is not. Normally, QMV is a practical way in which to proceed. Practical politicians from European countries get together and say what is in their best interests; often, QMV is the best way in which to proceed.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye):
My hon. Friend is an expert in such matters. Can he tell me how many times the previous Government agreed to QMV? Am I right in believing that they did so on 42 occasions?
Mr. Radice:
Yes, but that was when they were in government. It is much easier in opposition to act as a fine, principled Opposition and be against any extension of QMV.
Mr. Radice:
I know what the hon. Gentleman is about to ask: whether I am in favour of this--yes or no?
Mr. Bercow:
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I am listening to his contribution with rapt attention. Does he accept that a continuous extension of QMV will ultimately break the umbilical cord which links the Government and the governed?
Mr. Radice:
No, provided one retains exemptions that are key issues in the operation of the nation state. In other areas, such as fraud, QMV is plain common sense. That is what Amsterdam is about. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to exaggerate and, as I have listened to him today, he has tended to do so. If he wants to use hyperbole,
Mr. Radice:
No, I want to get on.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |