Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Dr. Fox: I am almost tempted to go down the line of debate that my hon. Friend suggests, but as he is far more expert in it than I am, I shall not do so, and also because I do not believe that we must link our currency to anything at all. I am quite happy for our currency to remain utterly unlinked. We have done dramatically well in the past decade using sterling in the current world trading environment.

For all the European dreams, oil will continue to be sold in dollars, and it does not matter how important Europe thinks it is. That is what the markets do. The commodities traded through the City of London will continue to be traded in dollars, because that is what the world does. It may be inconvenient for Europe to realise that it is not the centre of the world, and that what is said in Brussels will not be globally interpreted as the law.

There is a real world out there, and real markets that represent the cumulative economic activity of billions of people, and they are more important than what bureaucrats say in the European Union. We must understand that, because it will make the difference between our economic success in the future, and our economic failure.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I shall not interrupt him again. I was by no means suggesting that we should link our economy to the dollar. Rather, I was using that as an illustration of his argument that EMU is a political project, not an economic one. Were it a purely economic argument, serious consideration would be given to the two possibilities. Because it is being undertaken for political reasons, only the possibility of EMU is being considered.

Dr. Fox: There might be a point in the future at which such was the economic convergence that we would have

4 Dec 1997 : Column 539

to consider whether the economic well-being of what existed in the real world outweighed the loss of political sovereignty, but we are not at that point now.

The project is being pushed too far, too fast, on a political timetable, not an economic timetable. That is where its weakness lies. It is not outward-looking. It pretends that Europe can do more in the world economy than it actually can.

My argument is not that Europe is foreign. My argument is that Europe is not foreign enough. It contemplates its own navel far too much, and looks to the outside world far too little. That is an inherent weakness in the European case. We need a Europe that looks outward, that is built on the nation state and that respects the nation state. I have no problem being Scottish and being British at the same time, and incidentally, representing a west country seat. At the same time, I am an unashamed Unionist. I have no problem being British and European, but I have no intention of ever being European first and British second. I am happy to co-operate with our European partners, to work with them and to share sovereignty when it is in our mutual interest to do so, but I do not want to be governed by them. Therein lies the difference.

New Labour talks about new influence, but we are sidelined and will continue to be sidelined. The people's party talks about a people's Europe, but it delivers a politician's jamboree. The Prime Minister talks about promoting Britain's interests, but he gratifies his own ego at the same time as providing us with a slow surrender. We have no confidence in the Government's ability to defend and promote our interests in Europe, but it gives us no pleasure that that is so.

6.40 pm

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster): I am pleased to be called in this debate, which is particularly appropriate for me. It is a sort of maiden speech mark II and it is many years since I made my first one. It is symbolic that I should follow three of what I would term Euro-sceptical speeches, albeit of varying intensity, and I would not say that I disagree with everything that was said in them.

It is symbolic, too, that I should follow the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)--I am sorry that he has chosen to go for a breather, or wherever he has gone--because he has been a personal and family friend for 37 years. During that time, particularly the latter part of it--this is necessary background--he and I have parted political company increasingly generally, but particularly on Europe in recent years. That is sad. It happened when I sat on the same Benches as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, both in opposition and in government. What I am going to say now is nothing different from what I have already said from the Conservative Benches, and I am sure that everybody is all too familiar with my views.

What ran through my thoughts and emotions as I listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was that it is too distant a dream to believe that we could ever have a debate in the House, particularly between the two Front Benches, that is constructive about Europe; about Britain within Europe

4 Dec 1997 : Column 540

and advancing towards the leadership of Europe. I very much regret the fact that there is a gulf between the two major parties. I respect the strength of the views held by those who take a Euro-sceptic position--I have always respected their views and I have had many outings of various sorts with them over the years--but it is not healthy for British politics and it is not in the national interest.

This is obviously a bit of a personal statement. It is an opportunity for me to make a general speech about Europe. That is why I waited for this debate rather than indulging in debates in the Committee considering the European Communities (Amendment Bill), as that would have limited my comments. I value the opportunity to make this personal statement. I shall stick to Europe, but I shall include a little about what has happened to me in relation to recent events to do with the European Union.

I am sure that everyone will be relieved to know that my few words will not develop, in their motivation or intent, into any sort of attack on my former party. Obviously, there will be criticisms because, goodness knows, I made my views known when I was sitting with my former colleagues.

It is worth remarking that I have served in the House for nearly 24 years as a Conservative Member. Throughout that time, I have been a known and active pro-European. My views are the same now as they were when I first came to the Bar to take my seat. Goodness knows how many speeches I have made in the Chamber about Europe over the years, let alone the broadcasts I have made on virtually every aspect of the subject. One of the main things that brought me into British politics and into the Conservative party--I must emphasise that--was Britain's future within the European Union. Therefore, this is a sad speech for me.

I have dealt with my role in the Conservative party and with my increasing discomfort within it. I have not enjoyed, and have positively suffered over--this is a known fact and not a criticism--the fact that the Euro-sceptic drift of recent years has become increasingly pronounced. I believe that, during the previous Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)--I say this as a tribute to him--had a miserable time. In my estimation--there is a reasonable chance that he would agree with me--I think that he found the Conservative party virtually impossible to lead on European matters.

I believe fundamentally that the trend within the Conservative Government, and now the Conservative Opposition, is profoundly against the national interest. I believe that Britain belongs in Europe and should be a leader of Europe. We have a unique contribution to make, and I am delighted that we are now setting the stage for actively making that contribution.

I have been overtly in favour of a single currency in principle for many years. I said that on at least two occasions in the House while still belonging to the previous Government--I have held my view for a long time. I campaigned overtly in favour of a single currency in principle during the general election, and, for the first time, for obvious reasons, I had a personal election message on my election address, which was sent to all my electorate. I came out in favour of a single currency, in spite of all the clamour and drama that was going on with

4 Dec 1997 : Column 541

millionaires' money going around the place. I campaigned publicly in that way and I am pleased that I did so in view of what I have now felt obliged to do.

I have now come to the more recent run of events, but I cannot give the House the whole saga of what I have gone through. The culmination almost came some weeks ago when I was in Dublin with the Foreign Secretary. In fact, it did not come then; because of events, it took place just two weeks later.

I find totally unacceptable the shadow Cabinet decision of 23 October that, put simply, Britain should be outside a single currency for 10 years or at least the next Parliament. I am told that I had a freedom to express my views within the Conservative party--although the action towards me does not seem to suggest that--but I could not put myself forward as some sort of licensed dissenter. By standing as a Conservative candidate, I would be campaigning for a party to be elected to the Government of this country when it had views with which I was licensed to disagree. I cannot accept that shadow Cabinet decision in principle. It is totally the wrong decision.

The decision is that we should be outside a single currency for 10 years and then, apparently, we might be able to join after 11 years. The decision to be out for good and to be against a single currency in principle--I believe that many of my former hon. Friends think this anyway--is something which one could respect and with which one could disagree. Just clutching 10 years out of the air is politically irresponsible, because circumstances could change. If one is not against it in principle, it seems peculiarly foolish to set a time limit when circumstances might change. Within those 10 years, it may become manifestly in the national interest to join a single currency. If, by some accident of fate, we had a Conservative Government during that time, the country would be gravely disadvantaged.


Next Section

IndexHome Page