---

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maude: I shall make some progress, if I may.

The Government even deny that it is intended to be a European army. But they reckoned, of course, without the obliging Mr. Prodi, who has been forthright as ever. Memorably, he has said:

When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have decided to take that advice, although they have not yet chosen to call it Mary-Ann or Margaret, which were the alternative names proposed by Mr. Prodi. Nevertheless, it is quite clear what Mr. Prodi was saying. He was saying that it should be a European army, that it is a European army, and that it is being established to give the European Union more of the trappings of statehood. Undoubtedly Mr. Prodi was in league with the anti-European press to generate scare stories, to sell more newspapers.

Let us be clear about it. European defence co-operation is a good thing. Greater European defence capability--which this project will not deliver--would be even better, but that should be done within NATO, not outside it. We will work to bring the arrangements back within NATO, where they belong.

The super-state agenda of relentless political integration is an outdated dogma that belongs to yesterday. In the era of globalisation, a modern Europe needs flexibility, democratic accountability and legitimacy. We want to see a great move forward, with an enlarged European Union at last embracing the whole family of European nations. That entails a more flexible, not a more rigid European Union. Where there are failed centralised policies--such as the

23 Nov 2000 : Column 471

common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and the disgracefully badly managed European Union aid programme--much more decision making should be returned to the member states.

There is a real case and a real chance that if Britain were to make the case for that modern, multi-system European Union, it could succeed. The mainstream majority of the British public want, and the modern world requires, that type of European Union. If the Government would only acknowledge it, that is what the outcome of the Danish referendum makes a bit more likely. That is the dream that Britain has nursed for decades--of a Europe of close co-operation between independent nation states growing more prosperous together, with war between us unthinkable.

What a tragedy it is that the Government just let the case go by default. Rather than a forthright call to action, we see the slithering and the weaselly contortions of a Government acting by stealth to do what they know the public would reject. People are getting sick of it. They are getting sick of the Government. Happily, they will soon have the chance to get rid of them.

2.25 pm

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): One of the key roles of the Foreign Affairs Committee is to hold hearings with the Foreign Secretary before any European Council. We did so on Tuesday. I am grateful that the Leader of the House, in response to an appeal from the Foreign Affairs Committee, arranged this debate two days after those hearings, so that the transcript could inform this debate.

It is extraordinarily difficult to have a rational debate on Europe given the extremism within the Conservative party and, alas, in the majority of the British press. For example, in one of the few mentions of the Foreign Affairs Committee's hearings on Tuesday, The Daily Telegraph--a serious newspaper--alleged that one of the members was sleeping and implied that it was sad that we did not savage the Foreign Secretary, but instead had a reasoned and reasonable discussion with him.

I fear that the possibility of a reasoned debate on Europe will become even less likely as we approach a general election, as the main Opposition party regard the issue as perhaps the only one on which it has even the semblance of a chance of connecting with public opinion. Conservative Members, in grand terms, portray progress as the loss of our liberty and as foreigners telling us what to do and generally stabbing us in the back. That is clearly a distortion of the truth.

The essence of the Nice Council is a preparation for enlargement, dealing with the leftovers of Amsterdam. Surely every reasonable person must agree that institutions devised for the group of the six first members will in no way be fitted to a group of 26 or 30. It is wrong to declare oneself in favour in principle of enlargement, but, at the same time, to block the very institutional changes that are necessary to provide the platform for that enlargement.

The vision of Europe described by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is shared only by him and other Conservative Members. If they persist in that vision, they will be left on a sandbank as Europe passes

23 Nov 2000 : Column 472

them by. Alas, however, should they ever be in government, Europe will pass the British Government by. That would be bad for this country, and it is hardly anti-patriotic to say so.

The right hon. Member for Horsham also spoke of a bad week for Britain in defence. I remind him--I hope that he has some humility about it--that 10 October was a bad day for him. On that day, there was the unhappy coincidence in which he went to Paris to speak to IFRI, when he said that the defence proposals were being driven by a "cancer of anti-Americanism", whereas a couple of hours earlier, on that very same day, the United States Secretary of Defence gave "wholehearted" support for those very same proposals. Is it not just a little patronising to believe that one can know the interests of the United States better than the United States itself does?

Mr. Maude: I am not particularly concerned about the interests of the United States, but I am concerned about the interests of Europe, in terms of America remaining firmly engaged in, and committed to, Europe. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that there is deep concern among Americans--privately expressed by many of them, but also, increasingly, publicly expressed--he has not done his research properly. Even Secretary Cohen, in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred, commented that the proposal would be unsatisfactory. He said that it would be absurd

if NATO and the EU were to proceed along the path of relying on autonomous force planning structures.

However, that is being put in place.

Mr. Anderson: Of course there will be different views in the United States, because it is a great and vibrant democracy. However, I do not quote whispers made behind backs by individual Congressmen. I quote the US Administration. I shall let the words speak for themselves. Secretary Cohen said in Birmingham on 10 October:

Let me be clear on America's position. We agree with this goal--not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction.

The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said on Monday:

It is a strongly positive development we wholly support . . . It is a key feature of the European Security and Defence Identity, a NATO initiative that the US has supported wholeheartedly.

How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that the proposal is a "cancer of anti-Americanism", when the US recognises it for what it is: an essay in burden sharing, something for which it has been pressing for a very long time? When Baroness Thatcher talked airily this week about the English-speaking peoples speaking together, she was talking not about countries such as Nigeria, but about the transatlantic relationship. Alas, it takes two to tango, and it is clear that the US Administration takes a very different view of the development from hers.

Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: No, I want to make progress.

Lord Robertson said that

a European force would produce "added capability" for NATO.

23 Nov 2000 : Column 473

I remind the Opposition of what Lord Hurd said in the Financial Times in February this year:


Now, at last, a project has been launched. It is a strong British interest that it succeeds.

That was the voice of the old Conservatives until, alas, the Conservative party was taken over--on the Front Bench and elsewhere--by those whose paternity the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) questioned.

However, if we are to have a rational debate, I must acknowledge that there are genuine concerns about the development. On the question of capability, is Europe prepared to go beyond grand declarations and provide the resources? Will Europe deliver on the financial side? There have clearly been deficiencies in the past, but I invite hon. Members to look at the latest report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which states that

Eleven out of the 16 European allies in NATO (including the UK) are spending more on defence.

Countries such as the Netherlands are specifically citing this new European dimension as a reason to justify their increased expenditure on defence.

On intelligence, there are concerns that the European Union is a leaky organisation, that there is not an adequate building, and that there are problems with interpreters and with classified documents. Those issues must be addressed. There are also problems about the institutional linking of NATO and the European Union. I am glad that we in the United Kingdom, in the military committee of the EU, are double-hatting, so that our people on the relevant NATO committees will also serve on the EU committee, ensuring that there is no duplication.

I also take seriously the joint letter from Lords Carrington, Healey and Owen and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, published in The Daily Telegraph this week, which, although negative in tone, ends by urging "the utmost caution" in proceeding. That is a proper theme. If the proposal is to proceed, it will need careful planning, and we must make haste slowly.

Countries that are part of NATO but not of the EU also have relevant interests. Turkey will provide between 5,000 and 6,000 members of its own forces, as discussed at the capability conference earlier this week. All the candidate countries agreed to provide forces at the conference. It would be absurd, now that Europe is coalescing and working round this new joint initiative bringing together non-EU NATO members and others, if we were to follow the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition and withdraw from it. That would cause immense anger and disappointment among countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, which we shall regard as allies when, we hope, they join the European Union in the next few years. We need to work with them, not annoy them by making frivolous, anti-European gestures.

A valuable element of our meeting with the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday was the opportunity that it gave us to clarify certain problems, and raise certain other questions. I shall go through the leftovers from Amsterdam, and highlight some of the elements that emerged from our meeting on Tuesday. On the dual majority, it appears clear that the Government's No. 1 priority is to increase our vote in the Council, so that there would no longer be the need for a dual majority. It is

23 Nov 2000 : Column 474

reported that France is opposed to that. Although I do not expect the Minister of State to reveal our negotiating brief, I hope that he will be able to comment on the issue.

The Foreign Secretary said that it would be difficult if we were to end up with 26 or 27 Commissioners. The likely outcome of Nice is that every country will have one Commissioner. Are there any circumstances in which the United Kingdom would agree to a proposal not to have a Commissioner?

There appears to be a further change in the Government's position on the target dates for enlargement. In the past, we have said that it would be wrong to name specific target dates, but the Prime Minister seemed to go beyond that in his Warsaw speech, saying that he wanted new member states to participate in European parliamentary elections in 2004. Now, on Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary suggested that he hopes that there will be a consensus on target dates by the Gothenburg Council in June next year. On enhanced co-operation, the Foreign Secretary envisages a right of appeal in respect of the pillar 1 activities, rather than the veto that we have now.

There is a serious problem about parliamentary oversight of the new defence arrangement. The next intergovernmental conference, probably in 2004 or 2005, should look at the Prime Minister's idea, which he put forward in Warsaw, of a second chamber. Until then, there will be a serious void, a deficit, in the parliamentary accountability of the new defence arrangements. Of course, we have scrutiny in member states, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has properly stressed that the new arrangements are intergovernmental.

We need some means of establishing democratic oversight at European level, perhaps by building on the Western European Union Assembly and bringing in the European Parliament and other candidate countries. The Dutch have proposed that, at least, a declaration that that issue will be examined by the Swedish presidency is on the agenda for Nice. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept that this is a real problem for us as parliamentarians and democrats, and I hope that he will ensure that it is seriously debated soon.

---