| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I have got the sense of the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, which is developing into a speech. I have not received a request from the Government to make a statement about that matter--although they are able to do so at any time. The Minister who will reply to this debate may be of a mind to refer to that issue later.
6.11 pm
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch): I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talk about decentralisation and the European Union. His comments seem to be at odds with the direction in which the European Union and the European Commission have been moving in the past 20 or 30 years. For instance, what does decentralisation have to do with the treaty of Maastricht and the concentration of real economic and political power in fewer and fewer hands?
I am always fascinated to hear Conservative Members such as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) refer to the abandonment of the veto. The single greatest abandonment of the veto occurred in 1985 when the Conservatives pushed the Single European Act through Parliament. Some serving Members of Parliament helped to push that legislation through: it was Mrs. Thatcher's great stand against the Brussels juggernaut.
I have always believed that the Conservative party managed to secure the worst of all possible worlds in its policy towards the European Union. The Conservatives managed to wrap themselves in the union jack at home--playing an appallingly nationalistic card that was entirely counterproductive. They then went to Brussels, Strasbourg or wherever and lay down and died in front of any treaty that was foisted upon them.
The United Kingdom joined the European Community in 1972 without any mandate from the British people. It was a Labour Government who held a referendum in 1975. We then had the Single European Act 1985, the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. Finally, we witnessed that great victory for Conservatism: the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor. It is a shame that he is not in his place at present. If he is to respond to the debate later, I look forward to his sharing with us his special thoughts about how it feels to have been the British politician who put his name to the Maastricht treaty. He has never given us his views on that subject. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) may whinge from a sedentary position, but the fact is that the right hon. Gentleman put his name to the Maastricht treaty and has done nothing since then but criticise it. I would dearly love to know why he signed that treaty in 1992.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham):
I was not whingeing from a sedentary position; I was simply remarking how ill informed the hon. Gentleman is. If he thinks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is to make the winding-up speech for the Opposition, he is obviously in the wrong debate.
Mr. Cryer:
In that case, why was the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber earlier? He seemed to be making some notes--but there we are. Perhaps he will share his thoughts with us on another occasion. I look forward to that immensely.
Returning to the European Union--after that irrelevant intervention--I have always opposed the single European currency. I have made that clear both inside and outside this place. It is not because I am a little Englander--unlike many Conservative Members--or because I am a nationalist. I oppose the single European currency because I am an internationalist and I think it would be dangerous for people in Italy, France and Germany, as well as for working people and the democratic institutions of this country.
My objections to the single European currency are not economic--although plenty of criticisms may be levelled in that regard--but essentially political. The single European currency is basically a political project about
the creation of a European super-state. The pro-Maastricht campaigners on the continent are quite open about that. They have always been Euro-federalists; it is only in this country that there is some equivocation among EU supporters about political integration.
I have always wondered why the supporters of Maastricht are so enthusiastic about transferring power from elected institutions to unelected bankers sitting in Frankfurt or Bonn who are accountable to absolutely no one. Why is it such a great victory for the democratic process that power over interest rates should be concentrated in the hands of a few unelected, unaccountable people sitting in a board room somewhere?
I will give hon. Members an example of the European Union's unaccountability. Before the launch of the euro at the beginning of the year, I saw an interview with the President of the European central bank, Mr. Duisenberg. When asked exactly what would be revealed about the decisions made by the board of the European central bank, he replied that the voting patterns of individual board members would not be disclosed as that would leave them vulnerable to pressure in their countries of origin. That is what democratic accountability is about: exposing oneself to pressure.
Our constituents may ask us to vote a particular way on a particular issue and to make a particular representation. At my last surgery, a constituent asked me to support the death penalty. I had to be honest and said that I would not support the death penalty in a million years. That constituent must now decide whether he will support me at the next general election. The bankers on the board of the European central bank will not be in that position; they will not be exposed to any public hostility or approbation.
As to democratic accountability generally across the European Union, I am absolutely convinced--this is a fairly obvious point--that the small, closed, rich, white shop, which is what the EU has always been, has led to the abuses of power and the corruption that we have witnessed in recent months. It has led also to the European Union's treatment of poor third world countries, which I can only describe as imperialistic. I refer my right hon. Friend the Minister to the report by the International Development Committee entitled " The Future of the EC Development Budget". In its conclusion, the Committee states:
Yet the European Union has somehow managed to maintain with some sections of the population a nice, cuddly, liberal image. The EU has perpetuated the myth that it is terribly nice to people, whereas it has behaved absolutely appallingly towards some of the poorest countries in the third world.
As to accountability, I would be interested to know the Government's intentions on the proposed referendum on the single European currency. To what extent are the Government prepared to support the recommendations of the Neill report about future referendums? Will the Government remain neutral in a referendum, as recommended in the report, or will they follow the line taken by the Labour Government in 1975? That was a perfectly honourable position, but it would be interesting to know which position the Government will take.
Hon. Members may remember--I was only 11 at the time, but I clearly remember it--that in 1975 the Wilson Government issued a document called "Britain's New Deal in Europe", which declared that the Government supported Britain's membership of the Common Market because we would retain a veto over all decisions that we did not like, and because there would never be an exchange rate mechanism, which would be a threat to jobs. Both those points now seem pretty ironic after Black Wednesday in 1992 and the Single European Act of 1985.
Will Ministers be allowed to voice their independent opinions during a referendum, as in 1975, or will they be expected to abide by the principle of collective responsibility?
I turn now to the European Union's spending on propaganda to promote the single currency. On 8 February, I wrote to the head of office at the European Parliament office in Queen Anne's Gate to ask questions about the spending of EU money--after all, it is our money because it comes from our taxpayers--on the promotion of the European Union and the single European currency. In that letter, I asked:
Secondly, I asked:
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether a White or Green paper or a consultation paper will be issued in the run-up to a referendum to explain to people objectively and dispassionately the pros and cons of the single currency? That is important, and the publication of such a paper would again repeat the events of the 1970s, when the Wilson Government issued a paper to explain the pros and cons of membership of what was then the European Common Market.
"Recent fraud allegations have undermined the reputation of the European Commission. This report tells the story of an external assistance budget, unfocused, uncoordinated, ineffectively implemented and--to use the words of the Secretary of State--'skewed quite dreadfully against the poorest'".
That is the record of the European Union in the third world viewed against the backdrop of its attempts to push poor third world countries into deeply disadvantageous and exploitative trade agreements with western EU countries in order to allow multinationals and big banks to exploit those third world countries more effectively. So much is revealed in a previous report by the International Development Committee about the Lome convention.
"What was the expenditure last year, and how much will be spent this year, in the UK by the European Parliament on promoting the European Union on mobile information units or exhibitions?"
Hon. Members will be aware that trailers are touring the country, distributing pro-single currency information left, right and centre, outside schools and elsewhere. No information or propaganda about the other side of the argument is being distributed.
"How much money did the UK office of the European Parliament provide last year to support the European Movement in its programme of seminars and events and how much is expected to be provided this year?"
That was on 8 February, and so far I have not received a reply from the office of the European Parliament. That is how much it seems to care about accountability. When a British MP writes to it for a few simple explanations of how it distributes its funds, what answer does he get? Absolutely none. I must say that it comes as no great surprise.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |