| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.29 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on that magnificent speech. I remember meeting him many years ago when I was a Minister and travelled to Nottingham. I think that he has worn rather better than I have--but that is the way of things. He made a masterly assessment and analysis of the lessons to be learned from the American experience in so far as it has implications for us. I should like to think that the speech will commend him to those on the Labour Front Bench, but I am not sure that it will.
This is my first opportunity since the general election to contribute to a debate about the European Union. In fact, the issue of Europe dominated my election campaign. I found that the only thing that people wanted to talk to me about when they saw me in the street was the European dimension. I attribute my somewhat thinner majority in the election to the fact that because we have not closed down the argument by answering the question that people asked--"Where do you stand on a single currency, one way or the other?"--the subjects that the vast majority of people wanted to discuss with a Conservative candidate were never raised.
The conclusion that I drew was that we should never find ourselves in that situation again. That I why I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has adopted a position on the single currency which strikes me as being right and intellectually honest, and which commands the widest support among the people who spoke to me in the election campaign.
The single currency is sometimes spoken about as an end in itself, as though it was a new phenomenon that has suddenly darkened our horizons. I came to the issue somewhat late in the day. As I recall, I voted against entry into the Common Market, but that was probably very much on the balance of probabilities. I cannot honestly say that, cheerful and young as I was at the time, I gave it a huge amount of thought. The first time I gave the matter serious thought was in 1988. I was a Minister in the Department of Employment, where I was responsible for trade union reform. One day the Minister of State who used to deal with matters European found that he had a tummy upset or some such indisposition and could not go to Europe. I was told, "Minister, you are going to Europe. The car is downstairs, the Red Box is on the seat, and you can read the papers on the way over."
On the way over I read the papers, which were straightforward. At the bottom of my Box was an extra document, a copy of the treaty of Rome. I read it for the first time, and was both appalled and shamed by it. I had always accepted that the treaty of Rome was about establishing a common market. I had believed what I had been told. In the White Paper that preceded our entry into the Common Market, we were assured that
When I read the treaty of Rome, I realised that it was about establishing not a common market, but a new nation state, and that the establishment of a common market was merely a step down that road. Anyone who reads the
treaty of Rome realises that the common market, the single currency and so on are deliberate stepping stones to a federal destiny. Members of my party should recognise with contrition that our European partners realised that throughout. We did not, because we accepted the assurances that we were given that federalism was not on the agenda.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) quoted Hans Tietmeyer, the president of the Bundesbank. One of his predecessors, Karl Blessing, said:
The blueprint for the single European state, which can be created only if our nation state is extinguished, was laid down long ago in the treaty of Rome. We are at the 11th hour in the setting up of that new, independent state. It already has many of the attributes of such a state: an anthem, a flag, a Parliament, its own civil service, a common citizenship, its own overseas embassies, a common passport and, within days, it will have its own common currency.
Tax harmonisation is not a big surprise and has not just come on to the scene. It is inevitable. I shall not go through the documentation, as time is short. Far from standing up fearlessly against tax harmonisation, the Government are actively promoting it. That is the reality behind the rhetoric.
In addition to all the other attributes of a single state, we have discovered in recent days that we are to have a common legal system. Anyone who doubts that and fancies some bedtime reading should try reading "Corpus Juris" and what its apologists say. Stephen Woodward, the director of the European Movement, described the notion that "Corpus Juris" could ever be adopted as "ridiculous." He said that it was a report drawn up by a "group of experts" with no official status. He said that it
"Corpus Juris" states:
The document does indeed have official status. It is an official European document, produced under the aegis of Francesco De Angelis of Directorate-General XX. In the report that introduced and commended the document, the rapporteur, Mr. Rinaldo Bontempi, points out in sections IV and V that there is no need to worry about the national veto. He suggests that rather than using the third pillar,
I have one of the only copies of "Corpus Juris" around. The journalist Graham Danton, who got it for me, had to telephone Brussels and Luxembourg three times each. First, officials there denied that the document existed. Finally, they asked, "Why do you want it? You don't need it." Only when he said that he had heard that it was a really super book that would take forward the course of European integration did they say, "OK, that's fine--you can have it," and send him a copy.
I make no criticism of our European partners for behaving in that way. What they want is a single European state. That has been obvious from the inception of the treaty of Rome. It is not up to us to criticise them for what they want, but it is up to us to ask ourselves whether that would be right for us. Could we feel comfortable with such a relationship in Europe?
Back in March 1995 my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said in a debate in the House:
"decisions are only made if all members agree".
We were also told:
"There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty."
There was no question at all--it was inevitable.
"The final goal of the Commission is a European Monetary Union. . . A common currency . . . is feasible only if, apart from a common trade policy, there is also a common finance and budgetary policy, a common social and wage policy--a common policy all round. In brief, this would only happen if there was a federal state."
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich(Mrs. Dunwoody) got it right when she said that it was so plainly obvious that tax harmonisation is absolutely necessary if we are to enter a single European state that it was barely worth arguing about.
"goes nowhere near the creation of a system of European criminal law."
What does "Corpus Juris" do? I shall tell the House. It is a plan that envisages a European public prosecutor, the EPP--not much room for signwriters there--to whom each state's prosecution chiefs would ultimately be responsible. The Brussels-based EPP would be independent of national authorities and have a delegate in each capital city. The prosecutor would have the power to instruct a national judge to issue a European arrest warrant that would be valid across the whole European Union.
"For the purposes of investigation, prosecution, trial and execution of sentences concerning the offences set out above . . . the territory of the Member States of the Union constitutes a single legal area."
It continues:
"If an investigation conducted by a national authority reveals that an offence has been committed the dossier must be immediately submitted to the EPP."
3 Dec 1998 : Column 1120
There is to be a new judicial figure called the judge of freedoms. That should amuse anyone who has a ghost of a sense of humour. He is to give authority for suspects to be held for up to nine months under European jurisdiction and to be transferred to the country where the crime took place without extradition proceedings. "Corpus Juris" states that
"courts must consist of professional judges, specialising where possible in financial and economic matters, and not simple jurors or lay magistrates".
Goodbye habeas corpus.
"the basis for such action is to be found in the EC Treaty, with particular regard to Article 209a, whose provisions were strengthened by the Amsterdam Treaty".
The report goes on to say that that article
"makes cooperation between the Member States and with the Commission an obligation. . . the Amsterdam Treaty extends it to all the competent authorities including the judicial authorities."
Mr. Woodward describes such a document as having no official status. Sooner rather than later, it will simply be introduced. There are always three stages in such cases in Europe. First we are told that it does not exist. Then we are told that it will not happen. Finally, we are told that it is inevitable.
"The often unspoken fear of many people--we should address it honestly and clearly and examine it--is that Europe might develop into a super-state, an overarching Government with no national veto, no control over our own borders, prescriptive decisions, a single currency imposed and the nation state retreating to a wholly subordinate role. That fear exists out there . . . and we should recognise the fact that it exists."
He concluded, and it seems so long ago:
"I for one would find such a Europe wholly unacceptable for this country. I do not believe that it is remotely likely, but, if that were to be the future, it would not be a future that would be suitable for this country."--[Official Report, 1 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1062.]
We are there. We are in the presence of a new created state which requires our own nation state to be extinguished. We cannot go on being the bad man of Europe and standing in the way of our European partners
because we do not believe that their destiny is right for us. It is not a question of coming out of Europe. Europe is there. It is our own continent. Our nationality may be British, but our culture is European. Europe will always be there, which is why it is legitimate and right to say that we must be in Europe but not ruled by Europe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |