| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.39 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): On Monday, at about lunchtime, I walked unhindered and unhampered through the Brandenburg gate. That would not have been possible 12 years ago. Indeed, if the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, had had her way, it would not be possible today either, because she opposed German reunification.
Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
We can now move freely through Berlin, and many candidate countries from the former Warsaw pact want to become members of the European Union--
Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman should contain himself for a moment.
The circumstances that I have described are related to the fact that the two great institutions of the post-war period--NATO and the European Union--provided military strength and political and economic strength. They preserved the peace and brought stability, democracy and economic success to part of the continent of Europe--
Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: Not for the moment.
The continent of Europe was twice brought to the brink of destruction by nationalism and conflict in the 20th century.
Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Campbell: I will give way in a moment: the right hon. Gentleman should contain himself.
The two great institutions have been complementary. Their success has been based on a mixture of the visionary and the pragmatic. Both have contributed to the present circumstances in Europe, and it is true to say that the cold war was a necessary element in the evolution of Europe to what it is today. In acknowledging NATO's importance, we acknowledge the fact that the cold war had to be conducted in the way that it was, and that the west, under the leadership of the United States, had to show the resolution that it did. However, it is vital that we accept that that period is now over. Different considerations now apply, not least when we consider what should be the proper way to achieve the necessary security in regard to both the transatlantic relationship and to those former Warsaw pact countries that now belong to NATO and aspire to join the European Union.
Mr. Redwood: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct the record. I am sure that he did not mean to say that Baroness Thatcher and her Government were against German reunification. The policy of that Government was to welcome reunification. More importantly, it was Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, and President Reagan, who stood strong for the west to bring the Berlin wall down. It would not have come down if the west had not followed the policies of those two leaders, and Baroness Thatcher deserves some tribute from this House for the magnificent work that she did.
Mr. Campbell: The record shows that the then Prime Minister's attitude towards Chancellor Kohl and German reunification was one not of support but of opposition. There is much evidence that she was reluctant--
Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No, not for the moment.
Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has said that he is not willing to give way to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude).
Mr. Campbell: I will give way to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice).
Mr. Radice: Conservative Members are questioning the version of events offered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but they have only to read Mrs. Thatcher's memoirs. She makes it absolutely clear that she was totally against German reunification, but had to accept that the United States, France and Germany were in favour of it. Because for once she did not want to be totally isolated, she went along with those countries and supported reunification, albeit with great misgivings.
Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that I consider to be corroborative of my statement, for which there are many other sources of support.
Mr. Maude: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution does him no credit whatsoever. A cursory examination of the record shows that Baroness Thatcher's Government supported German reunification. I can say that with some authority, as I was Minister with responsibility for Europe at the time.
Mr. Campbell: I certainly accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he was in favour of German reunification, and that the Government of whom he was a member had to accept that reunification in the end. However, I do not demur from my earlier statement that Lady Thatcher originally opposed German reunification.
I was speaking about the contribution made by the two great institutions, NATO and the European Union. Those institutions were complementary: one dealt with security, and the other with politics and economics. That combination eventually created the circumstances that caused the Berlin wall to come down, and the dissolution, in due course, of the Warsaw pact.
It is vital to accept that circumstances have changed when we come to consider what the future of Europe should be. Any future Europe must be willing to accept the accession of other countries to the European Union. That is the purpose of the treaty of Nice, and there is no justification for the apocalyptic view of the treaty that has characterised some of the debate over the past few days.
There are those who say no to Nice. They insist that the House should not ratify the treaty, regardless of what its terms will be, and that the Government should not sign it. However, in effect, those people are saying no to enlargement of the European Union for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Maude: Enlargement is possible without the treaty of Nice.
Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but if enlargement is undertaken on the present terms, a number of questions arise. What would be the size of the Commission? Would not countries that do not represent a majority of population in an enlarged EU have the ability to outvote countries that do represent a majority of population, as the Foreign Secretary has warned?
Enlargement might be possible without an extension of qualified majority voting, but, under those circumstances, countries that join the EU would be in a position to exercise a veto immediately. They would therefore be able
to prevent existing and recently joined member countries from bringing about any objective on which they all agreed.It is true in theory that enlargement can happen without a treaty of Nice, but it is clear that, without such a treaty, political difficulties would mean that enlargement would be delayed for a very long time. That would be a poor reward for those countries that have worked so hard to achieve democratic standards and to move towards market economies. The consequence would be to underline the view that the European Union was introspective and protective and that it was not willing to share the benefits and advantages that have accrued to its members with those countries whose peoples lived for so long under systems that were wholly antagonistic and inimical to the objectives for which the European Union was formed.
Mr. Wilkinson: Are the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party in favour of enhanced co-operation? That is one of the themes that will emerge from the Nice treaty discussions. Would he support certain key European Union countries going ahead with certain areas of policy at a different speed from the rest of the membership?
Mr. Campbell: I have no difficulty with enhanced co-operation, as long as it does not have the effect of creating a two-tier Europe. For example, enhanced co-operation is clearly appropriate when it comes to defence. However, we must guard against creating a Europe in which there are first and second-class countries. That would be deeply damaging.
There is no evidence that the United Kingdom's fundamental interests are likely to be prejudiced by the treaty of Nice. Before I turn to some of the issues that I believe will arise in Nice, I want to spend a moment considering the European security and defence policy. My views are well known, and there is no need to detain the House on the matter. However, if the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is worried about cold war rhetoric, he ought to read some of the observations and remarks made by those who oppose the European security and defence policy. Much of their thinking appears to be locked into the rhetoric of the cold war. They fail to accept and understand that not only have circumstances changed in Europe but attitudes have changed in the United States.
It is simply not true to say that we are creating a standing European army, that NATO is being replaced, that British troops will be sent to fight on a majority resolution of the European Parliament and that all this could happen against the will of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. Does anyone seriously believe that in Germany--a country sensitive to the point of anxiety about military operations outside its borders--there would be any willingness to accept such operations? The German Government had to go to the constitutional court of Germany before they could put troops on the ground in Bosnia. It is beyond belief to expect that the German nation would sign up to this pastiche of a description of the European security and defence policy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |