| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Vaz: We have always made it clear that the charter will not be legally binding. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have repeated that in everything that we have said. Everything that the right hon.
Gentleman has said about the charter of rights being a declaration of existing rights is what we have said from the start.
Mr. Maude: Perhaps the Minister for Europe can be tempted to his feet again to explain to the House what he meant when, in early April, he said to the House of Lords Committee:
- I think it would be premature to decide now whether or not it--
- should go into the Treaties . . .
Mr. Vaz: I have given the right hon. Gentleman the answer to his question. He knows a lot about signing pieces of paper, as he was one of the Ministers who signed the Maastricht treaty. I am sure that that was drafted for him as well and he just signed it. We have made it clear: the charter is a non-legally binding declaration or proclamation of existing rights. That is what we have always said.
Mr. Maude: The Minister claims that he answered my question. He did not. I specifically asked him what the words meant. He voluntarily said to the House of Lords Committee:
- I think it would be premature to decide now whether or not it--
- should go into the Treaties . . .
- should go into the Treaties . . . ?
Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maude: I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am keen to make progress.
Even if the charter does not start as a legally binding text, experience shows that that is how it may end up. Social laws started off as a social charter--a statement of general principles--and developed into a social chapter, complete with costly, binding regulations. Before the Minister for Europe gets excited about my having signed the Maastricht treaty--[Interruption.] I am aware of that; I remember it. That is not a staggering revelation, though the Minister will recollect that, as a result of our negotiations, the social chapter did not apply to Britain. That was the beginning of a model for a more flexible Europe, which he would do well to study.
Precisely because I know what tends to happen--the integration process goes ahead inch by inch, step by step--we are particularly concerned about the charter. There is a real danger that it will turn into a charter for interference in national law and for job-destroying regulation that could turn centuries of common law in this country on its head. This country's legal system is different from those of other countries and we must not allow that to be overset.
If the IGC contains elements that would transfer powers from Westminster to Brussels, which the loss of the legislative veto, the institution of the ESDI in anything like its current form and the charter of fundamental rights would clearly all do, the public should have the right to vote on them in a referendum before they are enacted. I would expect the Foreign Secretary to be a strong supporter of that because, like us, he wants the public to be brought into the argument. He favours talking to them like grown ups on these matters, as he wants to do on the single currency, though he is frustrated by the Chancellor.
Last Monday, it was decided that reinforced co-operation will be on the IGC agenda. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the view of some formidable pro-Europeans on the continent that that should be taken seriously? He may remember that Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt said:
- It is obvious that full integration is not a realistic goal for thirty countries that are very different in their political traditions, culture and economic development. To attempt integration with that many countries can only lead to complete failure.
- the EU's main modus operandi--that all should move together or not at all--looks unworkable. Different countries have different aims, and for perfectly good reasons, not the least of which is that their electorates feel differently about the whole process of European integration . . . A multi-system Europe, in which groups of countries proceeded to integrate and co-operate in different ways according to their different choices, would offer a more stable and viable way to run a large, liberal community of 30 or more countries . . . ?
The IGC comes at a crucial time. As I said, there is a fork in the road for the European Union and a choice has to be made. Only if there is the right vision will the right choice be made. One route at the fork leads to an open, flexible Europe that celebrates diversity and does not seek to suppress it. That could be a network Europe, made up of nation states co-operating closely--perhaps more closely than now. The British public so clearly want that that I wonder that Ministers should even try to contest it.
At the fork is another route, of uniformity and uniform integration, in which national vetoes are all but abolished. That is being proposed by the European Commission and is supported by some Governments. The European Union, with eyes bigger than its stomach, would start tasks but not complete them and a tangle of subsidies and protective
practices would still be in place. There would be an unreformed budget and agricultural and fisheries policies from a bygone era. It would be an EU with its own Government, taxes, foreign policy, criminal justice system, constitution, citizenship and currency. We are being dragged further into that bloc Europe or single European superstate because of a pathetic failure of vision and will on the part of the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. It is time that they stood up for Britain.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has limited all Back-Bench speeches to 15 minutes, which will apply from now on.
2.42 pm
Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): As leader of the delegation to the Council of Europe Assembly and the Western European Union Assembly, I should like to raise three issues, all of which affect the European Union and either the Council of Europe or the WEU. I believe that I probably have the support of members of all parties in the delegation for doing that and for the views that I shall express.
One issue is the charter of rights or, as we are now being encouraged to call it, the charter of fundamental rights. I give the Government my complete support for their insistence that the charter must not be legally enforceable. If it were, it is inevitable that there would be conflict between it and the European convention on human rights. I remind hon. Members that the long-established European Court of Human Rights enforces the ECHR which, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, was the result of a major initiative by the British Government many years ago. It should not be replaced or superseded by some document produced by the European Union.
I have no objection to a declaration or charter, but, like other members of the Council of Europe Assembly delegation, I object to anything which is legally enforceable and leads to wasteful competition and duplication between the Council of Europe and the EU. However, it is not only a question of duplication resulting from the charter being legally enforceable. I remind hon. Members that all such activities involve expenditure and we cannot afford to spend European taxpayers' money on providing something that already exists.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a lacuna in the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the ECHR, and that there is a need for EU institutions to be subject to those rules?
Mr. Davis: The answer is that we should make it possible for the EU to subscribe to the ECHR. I would support that as would all members of the delegation, I believe. However, that does not mean that we should have a separate convention and charter, each of which is separately legally enforceable. I regret that some Members of the European Parliament are pressing for that precise provision.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |