| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.45 pm
Mr. Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the accountability that we derive through the European Parliament will be enhanced or lessened by the Government's proposals to change the system of election to the European Parliament, which will mean that his constituents and mine will not know for whom they are voting in the European elections?
Mr. Radice: I am in favour of proportional representation both in a general sense and in respect of the European Parliament, where it is sensible for the Parliament to reflect the votes cast. The swings between the parties resulting from small changes in votes under a first-past-the-post system--
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
Mr. Radice: I was answering a question.
The Second Deputy Chairman: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman was answering a question, but I would be grateful if he would now get back to the amendment in hand.
Mr. Radice: I am grateful, Mr. Lord. I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's question to my own satisfaction, if not to his.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Radice: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to take up the question asked by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) after what we have just heard from the Chair.
Mr. Bercow: If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that there is currently a ratchet effect working in favour
of increased powers for the European Parliament, will he kindly explain to the Committee when there has ever been a repatriation of powers from the European Parliament to the House of Commons? If he cannot demonstrate that there has ever been such repatriation, it follows that there is a ratchet effect working.
Mr. Radice: I thought that it was going to be one of those ratchet-effect arguments--[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I am not concerned about that, because we are increasingly working together as European nations on a whole range of issues. I rejoice in that fact, just as I rejoice in the fact that we do not have war. Such co-operation is a way to bind us together. The establishment of the single market means there are other areas in which we want to combine and co-operate, and that is precisely what is happening. If that is to be done at the level of the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament requires increased powers. That is precisely what we have got and I rejoice in that.
If I may correct the hon. Member for South-West Devon on one point, the European Parliament's powers have been increased vis-a-vis the Commission and especially vis-a-vis the President. For the first time, the Parliament will have the power to veto the nomination of the President, and I am in favour of that, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not. He was therefore incorrect to say that there had been no change in the relationship between the Parliament and the Commission.
Mr. Collins:
The hon. Gentleman refers to provisions in the treaty that would give the European Parliament a right of veto over the appointment of the President of the Commission. That is to transfer powers away from the Council of Ministers and therefore from national Governments. It in no way answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) about transferring powers away from the Commission.
Mr. Radice:
No, but it is giving powers to the Parliament vis-a-vis the Commission. That was an important change. It is a useful increased power for the Parliament.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
In considering the ratchet, or the lack of it, has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to the protocol on subsidiarity with regard to the Amsterdam treaty, which alters the onus of proof in relation to whether these matters should be dealt with at Community level or otherwise?
Mr. Radice:
The idea of the founding fathers that the European Union would end up as a federal state or a federal super-state has now been undermined, and it was undermined at Maastricht by the subsidiarity clause which ensured that those areas where the nation state would be important should be given priority. One of the problems was that other European countries--I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me here--also saw that as giving more power to the regions and local communities. The Liberal Democrats obviously did not, so their idea of subsidiarity was a partial one.
This is a modest treaty and a modest extension of qualified majority voting. Any British citizen, not blinkered in the way that Conservative Members
are, would support this perfectly sensible measure. They would also support the corresponding increase in the co-decision powers to the European Parliament. One follows from the other.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on what they have done in this area. They have behaved in a sensible and pragmatic way. They looked at matters as they are and they had objectives. They did not give away the nation state. Such talk is for the birds. Rather, they promoted Britain's interests, in some cases by retaining the national veto and in others by co-operating and accepting qualified majority voting with our European partners.
Mr. Collins:
This group of amendments goes to the heart of the bungled negotiating tactics and the missed opportunities which the treaty represents. As we have heard so much about the allegation that it is not possible to criticise the treaty without being anti-European, let me make what I hope the Committee will regard as an unambiguously pro-European case for the amendments.
Like the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), I was born a European and I will die a European. That is a fact of having been born in these islands. It is inevitable historically, culturally and geographically. Like the hon. Gentleman, I salute the fact that in the EU we have an institution which has brought together countries which, for centuries, have fought against each other, which has helped to create a single market which is open to British goods, and to which it is fundamentally in the national interest to belong.
However, that does not answer any of the issues before us today. Those issues concern the nature of the Europe to which we belong, not whether we belong to Europe. The difficulties with the extensions of qualified majority voting which the treaty and the Bill provide are twofold because they help to undermine precisely some of the merits and advantages that have led the Conservative party, clearly and consistently, to be in favour of British membership of the European Community.
In parentheses, since Labour Members always accuse us of 18 years of missed opportunities in Europe, it is worth noting that 14 years ago--within that time frame--the Labour party was advocating our entire withdrawal from Europe.
The key point about qualified majority voting is that it changes the nature of the organisation and government of the European Union. I fear that, in so doing, it challenges and starts to undermine the essential element of popular legitimacy that is required for any national or international organisation to operate.
Specifically, among existing member states the present treaty provisions will remove, over ever-expanding areas of policy, decision making from the national Parliament and the national Government with which all European citizens can most naturally identify, and will--fatally--start to undermine the feeling that even European institutions are organised on a proper democratic basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) drew attention to the fact that a great opportunity had been missed for an exchange, if any concessions were to be made at all, at least for a better
deal on qualified majority voting. The extensions in the treaty will mean that in even more areas it will be possible for Governments representing the majority of the people of Europe to be outvoted by countries and Governments representing a minority of the peoples of Europe.
The hon. Member for North Durham thought that to oppose qualified majority voting one had to believe that it was possible for the United Kingdom to be frequently on its own. That is not how qualified majority voting works. Qualified majority voting means that even if we have a number of allies we can still be outvoted and have measures imposed on us against our consent and that of others. As the Union expands, the number of allies needed will grow and the chances of our being outvoted, even with a number of allies, will grow. We missed an opportunity to alter the way--
Dr. Ladyman:
The hon. Gentleman is developing an interesting theme. He says that one day it may be possible for a minority to take decisions that the majority in Europe do not agree with. Is that not the basis on which, for the past 18 years, the Conservatives ran this country?
Mr. Collins:
It happens to be the basis on which the Labour party currently runs the country, as it only secured 42 per cent. of the vote, so I hardly think that that argument advances things for the hon. Gentleman.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |