| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): The Foreign Secretary said that the European Union had to be inclusive. Will he say a few words about Cyprus, which is divided? I understand that that may not be a barrier to Cyprus entering the EU. If that is the case, what will be done to ensure that the population of the northern part of Cyprus will be consulted about joining the EU?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important part of the enlargement debate. The Government strongly support the right of the Government of Cyprus to apply for membership. We recognise that Cyprus has done a large amount over the past three years to prepare itself for membership. Were it not for the division of the island, Cyprus would be a foremost candidate for membership. It would be immensely helpful to the debate if that division could be resolved within the context of the enlargement talks.
Enlargement may provide a catalyst to bring about the solution to the division of the island. Those who live in the northern occupied sector would benefit more than anybody else in Cyprus from membership of the EU, because their income is a quarter the level in the Greek Cypriot sector. However, if it is not possible to resolve the issue of the division of the island, it is the position of this Government that it would be unfair to the majority of the people of Cyprus if its Government were to be excluded because of the continuing division. I regret that the Turkish authorities in the northern sector have refused the recent approaches by Commissioner van den Broek to include them in the negotiating team from Cyprus. It would have been good both for the division of the island and the negotiation if they had taken up the offer.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if this country enters the single currency at some point, its democratically elected Government would be legally prohibited from making
Mr. Cook:
I am not sure how that naturally arose from the discussion of Cyprus, but of course the principle established in the Maastricht treaty is that the central bank will be independent and will not be subject to political interference. In that regard, it will stand in relation to the Governments of the European Union in precisely the same way that the independent central banks of Germany and of other countries stand in relation to their Governments.
Enlargement is the prime objective that we seek to achieve at the Luxembourg summit. We must not be distracted from that No. 1 goal, but, if enlargement is to be a realistic prospect, other elements of the Agenda 2000 package must be supported and will need to be approved at Luxembourg. We will go to Luxembourg determined to maintain the budget ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of gross domestic product of the European Union. Britain comes 11th in terms of per capita income in Europe and is the fifth largest net contributor, even after the rebate. It is plainly in our interest to maintain realism in the European budget.
Retaining that ceiling has consequences. Enlargement will cost money. The countries coming in are poorer than the present member states--typically, their income is one third that of member states. They will require some major industrial restructuring and economic recovery. If the European Union retains the same budget and if that budget is spent in more member states as we enlarge, it arithmetically follows that less will be spent among the existing member states. If we are not willing to face that, we should not pretend that we are serious about enlargement.
That is why we will seek a mandate from the Luxembourg summit to take forward the Commission proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy and of the structural funds, which together make up some three quarters of the European budget. In any event, reform of the CAP is long overdue. It cannot be sustainable to continue to spend 50 per cent. of Europe's budget on an industry in which 4 per cent. of the work force are employed.
It is especially important that we achieve such mandates at Luxembourg because the British presidency will start the work to carry them out. That offers Britain a rich and exciting opportunity. Next April, for instance, London will host the Asia-Europe summit, at which countries representing half the GDP of the entire globe will be present. It is a great opportunity to take further the co-operation for stable growth throughout the globe and to tackle the environmental issues that are of mutual concern throughout the globe. The summit is a great opportunity for Britain to show skill and imagination in brokering global agreements. At summits during its presidency, Britain will also represent Europe in dialogue with Latin America, the United States and Japan.
I am indebted to the Daily Express for revealing that a Liberal Democrat had tabled questions that revealed that I had spent more on foreign travel than any other Minister. I appreciate the newspaper's understanding remark that,
as Foreign Secretary, I have at least some excuse for foreign travel, but I warn both the Daily Express and the Liberal Democrats that there will be even more excuses for foreign travel as we take over the EU presidency next year. I hope that the House will appreciate the validity of that.
The British presidency presents another opportunity much closer to home. It provides us with a clear opportunity to demonstrate that Europe can deliver on the concerns of our people. On jobs, at the Cardiff summit, we will review the action plans that will flow from the guidelines approved in Luxembourg. On the environment, we will take forward what action Europe needs to take to fulfil the commitments that we took to Kyoto. On crime and drugs, we will launch the customs convention and see through European initiatives to interdict the drugs trade in central Asia and in the Caribbean.
Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will launch the British presidency and reveal its themes and objectives. They will confirm that we have one clear determination during our presidency: to make Europe work for the people. That will be our contribution to building the Europe of the next century--a Europe that has learnt the lessons of this century.
Last week, I laid a wreath in the Warsaw ghetto at the site of the station from which tens of thousands of people went to their death. This week, I started a conference to establish the truth about the gold that was looted by the Nazis. Truth is the least that we owe in justice to the people who perished under Nazi persecution. Recording and remembering what happened in those atrocities are the best protections against them ever happening again in our continent.
Putting the record straight about what happened 50 years ago has proved challenging. It has reminded me of how different the world was only 50 years ago. While I was in Poland and in Prague in the Czech Republic, the Foreign Ministers of both countries welcomed the ethical dimension to Britain's foreign policy. They said that countries that have been the victim of realpolitik welcome a foreign policy that includes the values of human rights and democracy and is not based just on the interests of power politics.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
The Foreign Secretary knows that he has our full support with regard to several of the policies that he is pursuing. One of those is to establish the European code of conduct on the export of arms. Is he making substantial progress on that matter, particularly in discussions with the French? Does he agree that we cannot travel at the speed of the slowest member state? We need firm criteria and firm treaty obligations at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Cook:
The great majority of EU member states have spontaneously expressed interest in our code of conduct and are pressing us to bring forward our proposals. If possible, we should like to ensure that we have a common text with our French colleagues before we go before the EU because we are the two largest arms-producing and exporting nations, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, during our presidency, that will definitely be taken before the Council and will undoubtedly have overwhelming backing.
I was reflecting on how much has changed in the past century. Fifty years ago, Germany and Italy were only just emerging from a war in which Britain and France had been their enemies. As recently as 20 years ago, Spain and Portugal were emerging from fascism. Only 10 years ago, Russia was regarded as a super-power and the countries that I visited were its colonies. I believe that the decades ahead will show change even greater than that which we have been experiencing in the latter part of this century. In the decades ahead, the peoples of Europe will become more cosmopolitan, travel more, work more in other people's countries and more often marry people from other European countries. They will expect their Governments to be as much at ease in dealing with foreign politicians as they will be in dealing with people from foreign countries.
Economic activity will increasingly transcend national boundaries. It will become more necessary for economic policy to be co-ordinated across those same national frontiers. Knowledge and information will be received as commonly through the fibre optic cable, the internet and e-mail as through the local evening paper. Political ideas and debate will belong not just to the domestic arena but to an international stage.
Britain needs a Government to prepare it for that modern world and to shape Britain's place in that Europe of the next century. Opposition Members, or at any rate those on the Opposition Front Bench, do not merely borrow their thinking on economic and social policy from the 1930s; they borrow a foreign policy to match from the same era--an era of splendid isolation, when Britain could stand alone. It is a fitting policy for a Conservative party that does not have a single sister party in the whole of Europe, but it is no service to Britain to offer it the policies of the mid-20th century for the world of the early 21st century.
Britain needs a Government who understand the modern world, who can command respect and influence in Europe and who can relate Britain to the world outside. That is what we offer Britain--a Government who offer active leadership in the world. [Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), who has decided to grace us with his presence for this closing moment in my speech but feels that he fully understands all that has gone before, that, if he reflects on what Ministers are doing, he will understand what I am saying.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Development signed the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines. It was the early change in British policy on land mines that made it possible for us to play a major part in drafting that treaty in Oslo. Tonight, the Deputy Prime Minister leaves for Kyoto to break the stalemate on climate change. Our ambitious target has made us a leading voice in the preparations for that conference.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |