| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Swayne: The Foreign Secretary said it himself.
Mr. Robin Cook: I did not say it.
Sir Michael Spicer: If the Foreign Secretary did not say it, it does not really matter, because we need to be concerned only with the wording. Paragraph (2) of the protocol on subsidiarity states:
- "The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law".
The process is inexorable. I know that at least one of my right hon. Friends says that there is a distinction between a federal state and a single currency state--or a system in which there is a single currency. However, I cannot understand how that can be true.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman and perhaps other hon. Members that this is not a general debate on Europe. We are talking about the allocation of time.
Sir Michael Spicer:
I understand that, and I shall move straight on to my next point.
The section on subsidiarity in the treaty of Amsterdam has to be seen in the context of what is happening in Europe. It relates in particular to the second force that is working inexorably towards a federal state--the European Court of Justice.
We should have time to discuss the treaty and the protocol, which are of intense importance because, for the first time, they enshrine into the European Court of Justice and into the concept of the acquis communautaire the concept of subsidiarity. Until now, that has been left vague. Some of us said that it was too vague and that it was being used as an excuse for moving towards a federal state, but now it is enshrined in the treaty. The European Court has derived its powers largely from itself--it has built up its own powers through various court cases with Sabena, giving it priority to set up new law, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, giving it priority over domestic Parliaments, and acquis communitaire, giving it the powers of occupied territory to move further forward in one direction.
Now, in the treaty of Amsterdam, the Government are blowing their own trumpet and trying to get away with the argument that the enshrinement of subsidiarity somehow provides a balance. In the treaty of Amsterdam, they have enshrined the concept and handed it over to the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Swayne:
May I ask my hon. Friend how long he suspects that subsidiarity might survive, given that article B of the treaty says:
Sir Michael Spicer:
Of course I understand. If I may be so bold as to say so, my point fits directly into the question that my hon. Friend has just asked me. We are not being given enough time to discuss paragraph 2 of the protocol on subsidiarity which is a central part of the Amsterdam treaty--it is the part which the Government swank about. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this time the acquis communautaire is being connected to subsidiarity and the whole matter handed over to the European Court to determine what should be subsidiary and what should not.
That is a major new step. The Government should not be allowed to get away with making such assertions about legislation. That is one of the central reasons why we should have more time to discuss the matter. Governments have claimed for some time that they are retracting power from Europe through a piece of European legislation, when, in fact, they are doing precisely the opposite. Only if we have time to explore the issue will we be able to winkle that out of the Government and put them on their back foot. It is terribly important to the public understanding of what is going on through the treaty of Amsterdam that that should be so.
I rest my case, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will perhaps be glad to hear, on a point about ratification of the treaty by national Parliaments. Especially in this country, where we do not have a pattern of holding referendums, we must ensure that Parliament has time to discuss the ratification of treaties. Such treaties fundamentally affect this country's constitution in, as it happens, a progressive way, towards a federal state of Europe.
Apart from Portugal, which may have a referendum, Denmark is the only country left with a referendum. As we shall pass the legislation in a matter of hours, this country will certainly not have much more to say about the treaty. The ratification process is becoming a matter of rubber stamping as a result of this motion.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to Denmark. Is not it ominous and significant that, in Denmark, when the Euro-apologists and those who support a federal Europe did not get their way, the rules were changed? We should have more time to discuss what is involved. In Denmark, those who support a federal Europe persuaded others to undertake a second referendum. Are we going to allow a second referendum if, for instance, Denmark--again--or Portugal vote no? Are we again going to breach all the principles and time limits that formed part of the Maastricht debate on the European Community?
My hon. Friend is correct. The legislation will have a fundamental effect on our constitution, and that is why we should have more time to discuss it. We are talking not only about the European Court of Justice but a single currency. If one gives up control of one's currency, one loses control of one's economy; and if one loses control of one's economy, one loses control of one's country. Should this Parliament allow that to happen? I do not believe that it should.
Sir Michael Spicer:
That was an excellent speech, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend was able to make it.
The point that I was making was that if Parliament goes ahead with the process of rubber stamping this legislation, the only country left which will be able to try to stand its ground will be Denmark.
I end on this question: what is this all about? What are we doing? One thing that we are doing is moving towards a federal state of Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the economic aspect, and I mentioned the legislative aspect. We will not be able to get to grips with the Government's claim that the legislation is some kind of balancing act, and that there is give and take. There is not; the legislation is part of an inexorable process towards a federal state of Europe. No one has shown me why it is to the good of this country to give up our economy and our democracy. What will that be replaced with? It will certainly not be replaced with stronger democratic institutions. No new seasoned economic instrument will safeguard this country.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills):
I agree with some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer).
The Foreign Secretary, whose talents as a forensic cross- examiner in the House have been exhilarating to witness, resorts to Tweedledum--or possibly Tweedledee--politics: the arguments that he advocated yesterday are not the ones that he advocated today. The cynicism associated with that reversal of position undermines the standing of the House, and, if I may be so frank, the standing of the Foreign Secretary himself. We are not sent here only to administer the actions of government, as the Foreign Secretary well knows. In his long 18 years in opposition, he fought many battles, one of which was opposition to the guillotine. In almost all the guillotine votes, I joined him in the Lobby to express the inappropriateness and unreasonableness of curtailing debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made the points that everyone in opposition would make.
I wish to refer closely to a note of a previous speech:
The Bill is a transfer from democratic institutions to other arrangements which are not democratic. The treaty gives more power to the European Parliament, extends competencies, extends qualified majority voting, redefines or re-emphasises citizenship and deals with other matters, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out. No one doubts that those issues are important; that is why we are fighting and struggling for a form of democracy that the Government are prepared--as were the previous Government--to wave goodbye to. There was seen to be greater grasp in conceding the democratic right to change the laws under which we live, but the equality of citizens is the first trust of democracy.
I have heard many a fine speech on these matters by the Foreign Secretary, but that is all out of the window now. Office has converted and changed his view, and that saddens me. In those days, the right hon. Gentleman contended fiercely with Sir Malcolm Rifkind across the Floor of the House; we well remember that. I believed--perhaps wrongly--that the trust that he held then in the democratic and detailed discussion of these points was important.
I take the imposition of a guillotine at this stage very seriously. Some 19 hours have been cited--in 19 hours a detail is passed away. I will now explain why this is important, and the contribution of the Single European Act, which went through with a guillotine motion far worse than the one that we are debating today. I accept all that. I disliked it then and I thought it inappropriate and wrong.
It is interesting that none of us understood entirely the weight of the argument. We were given assurances by Ministers that the Act could not be interpreted in certain ways. Those assurances were given and accepted in good faith, but we discovered--as they unwound--that they did not amount to much. Circumstances, judgments made by others elsewhere and qualified majority voting changed our understanding of the weight of constitutional arrangements. The unpicking of Maastricht laid open to the House the full ambition of this new constitutional arrangement.
Perhaps that is what the Foreign Secretary and his Front-Bench colleagues fear, but I think not. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he mentioned that the Government did not want their programme upset. We are in a medley of vast constitutional change--unbalanced, unthought and guillotined, for this is now the third guillotine of the new Parliament.
The Foreign Secretary is right to excoriate the Conservative party's past. Many of those who voted so triumphantly for guillotines are no longer here to see the outcome of their actions. We learned, and that is why I want the Foreign Secretary and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect solemnly on this. The argument is very important, and each clause and chapter means something. This new constitution is beyond the reach of this House--other than, as Lord Shore said, by completely repealing the legislation. I do not think that most hon. Members want that.
The Government have--without understanding, I would contend--entered into a series of new agreements. The then Conservative Government found at the time of Maastricht that they had no understanding of the overall architecture of the legislation. Ministers negotiated little bits; the Home Secretary did the home affairs bit, the Foreign Secretary did this and Treasury Ministers did that, but no one stood back to look at the overall picture. Each could say, "My little bit is not so significant, as it is all part of a piece that is fine."
The then Home Secretary--my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)--to whom the Foreign Secretary referred, did not even know that the Queen was a citizen. There was no understanding of the constitutional changes and that is why a guillotine is inappropriate now. The Government should seriously reflect on that point. I fear that we shall see a process of guillotines; first, on Scotland. The Welsh business has been taken off the Floor of the House. The right of every hon. Member to speak on a matter of fundamental constitutional importance is being withdrawn from us.
"The Union shall set itself the following objectives".
The fourth such objective is
"to maintain in full the acquis communitaire and build on it"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be encouraged to answer that intervention. I have already made the point that we are talking specifically about the allocation of time.
"the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is not just another Bill relating to our domestic affairs. It is not a Bill which, however objectionable to the Opposition and others and however truncated the debate on it, is still capable of repeal and replacement in a subsequent Parliament when a different party will occupy the Treasury Bench. It is not even what might be described as a domestic constitutional Bill, such as the Bill abolishing the metropolitan counties or the Bill on devolution for Scotland and Wales, for they, too, are capable of restoration or repeal in a subsequent Parliament.
Those words were spoken in opposition to the Single European Act by the then Shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney--now Lord Shore. That is the essence of this Bill and why it is important to us.
What is special about the Bill is that it gives legislative effect to a treaty concluded with other nations--the member states of the EEC--and upon whose institutions it confers additional legislative powers. Once passed, this measure cannot be repealed by a subsequent Parliament, unless that Parliament is prepared to tear up the underlying treaty itself--a special dimension of difficulty which I do not believe many . . . Members have even given serious thought to."--[Official Report, 1 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 937.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |