| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a well-thought-out speech. However, I remind him that, only a couple of years ago, the Nuremberg memorandum, which I am sure that he is aware of, stated
clearly that they envisaged a relationship between France and Germany within the context of the Western European Union that included, for example, a collective defence based on a combination between conventional forces and nuclear forces. The idea that this is just a de minimis operation is rubbish.
Mr. Campbell: I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman says about the Nuremberg declaration, but that in no way fuels the notion that we are creating a single European army which will be invited--indeed, instructed--to fight on a majority decision of the members of the European Parliament. In Germany, just as in the United Kingdom, there is jealous guarding of the fact that committing troops and asking people to risk their lives is the responsibility of the domestic political system.
I actually agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who made the point in business questions that there should be some role for this House of Parliament when British forces are deployed abroad, and that it should no longer simply be part of the Executive prerogative. However, I do not believe that Germany or France has any enthusiasm for the description of a European security and defence policy that has characterised so much of the ill-informed comment that we have heard this week.
I have two further points, one of which picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Capability must match military ambition, and commitments on paper need to be founded in reality. There is no point in any country--Britain included--committing squadrons of aircraft when there are insufficient serviceable engines to ensure that those aircraft could be deployed if required. It is not all that long since there were two dozen aircraft on the ground at RAF Bruggen and only half a dozen engines available by which they might be able to fly. We must ensure that, if commitments are made on paper, they are supported in reality.
I have been unsuccessful in persuading the Secretary of State for Defence with regard to my next point, but perhaps I shall enjoy a little more success with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To ensure that the primacy of NATO is recognised, the protocols--the arrangements--should provide that NATO should always have the right of first refusal before any military action is taken. If that requirement were inserted in the arrangements, it could never be said that NATO had been sidelined or undermined. Let me express the hope, even at this stage, that the Government will consider that proposal. It comes from the United States--representing some of the legitimate concern that has already been discussed in the House--and would go a long way towards dealing with the position of the United States and, just as significantly, with the position of members of NATO which are not also members of the European Union.
I do not expect the treaty of Nice to be a great constitutional watershed on defence, treaty change, social security, taxation, own resources or borders, because the veto should remain in those areas.
Sir Michael Spicer: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very well-thought-out speech,
but there is a bit that I do not understand. The Liberal Democrat party believes in a federal state of Europe, so why does it approve a treaty and defence arrangements which it argues are not federalist?
Mr. Campbell: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the view that the Liberal Democrat party believes in a federal Europe--perhaps it comes from Conservative party briefing papers. I certainly believe in federal systems of government, in which power is devolved from the centre to the constituent bodies of, for example, the United Kingdom. If there were to be a federal Europe of that kind, I would certainly have some sympathy with it. However, the federal Europe to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an invention in which the artificial apprehension is that everything that is relevant to Edinburgh, for example, will be decided in Brussels. I am not in favour of that kind of federalism, so defined by the hon. Gentleman's question; I am in favour of the kind that ensures that decisions are taken close to the people who are most affected by them.
As to the veto, I have no doubt about supporting the Government's attitude on those matters. They are so fundamentally in the interests of the United Kingdom that the veto should be retained. However, there will be circumstances in which the retention of the veto would be against our interests. That is why we should take it on a case-by-case basis, whether or not there are any opportunities for qualified majority voting in other areas. It is as unrealistic to say that we will never agree to any further extension of QMV as it would be to abandon the veto and allow everything connected with the European Union to be determined on a majority.
I hope that the Government are seeking to reform the institutions of the European Union so that the 50 years of division about which the right hon. Member for Horsham spoke earlier can be set aside. In enlarging the Union, we are not simply rewarding those countries for their efforts but helping them to embed those values of liberal democracy in their countries. We will also be helping them--inducing them, even, because of the economic advantage--to open up their markets. In that way, we will all benefit.
We will be inviting those countries to join a mature political and economic union that exists between the members of the European Union. The co-operation that we have seen in Europe is unprecedented. That should be a matter of pride, not of apprehension or anxiety. The reweighting of votes is essential as a check and balance to prevent member states representing a minority of the European population from assembling enough votes in the Council to outvote member states which represent the majority of the population. It is sensible to provide for reduction in the potential number of commissioners. Majority voting should, as I have said, be extended on a case-by-case basis, where it is in our interests to agree to it.
Mr. Bercow: In the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, will he explain whether
he believes that qualified majority voting should be extended to culture policy and sexual equality and, if so, on what basis has he reached that view?
Hon. Members: It is on the agenda.
Mr. Campbell: Whether it is on the agenda or not, that is a case for arguing. I believe in sexual equality and absence of discrimination against sexual orientation. That is a good Liberal principle, and I have no objection to qualified majority voting applying to that. It might ensure that in other parts of Europe, where attitudes are less tolerant and liberal, British attitudes might ultimately prevail.
On the charter of human rights, I do not believe that it should justiciable now for two reasons. One is pragmatic: we have but recently repatriated the European convention on human rights into the domestic legal systems of the United Kingdom. Unquestionably, both systems will take some time to adjust. It does not make much sense to impose on what has recently been repatriated yet another charter of rights until we see how the action of repatriation works out and its consequences. That is an entirely pragmatic view.
I have a more principled objection at this stage, however; the proposed charter of human rights should not be justiciable in the absence of a proper constitution. The rights of the individual are certainly part of a constitutional settlement, but this charter should not become justiciable before we have a constitution.
I have no hesitation in saying that the time is ripe for a constitution for the EU. It would force a rigorous assessment and definition of responsibilities and relationships between domestic Parliaments, the Commission, the Council, the European Court and the European Parliament. In that context, it would give the opportunity to define the rights of the citizen. It would also bring some clarity and transparency. I very much hope that the Nice Council will establish a mechanism for devising such a constitution.
I hope also that the Council will devise means for far greater transparency in the Council itself when it acts in a legislative capacity. When it does so, it should be open to the public; at the very least, there should be publication of all its votes within, say, 24 or 48 hours of them having taken place. Far too much of what is done in the Council in a legislative capacity is concealed from the citizens of the EU.
The Government cannot escape some criticism in any argument about Europe. The notion--apparently put about in some Government circles--that they can conduct a European-free election campaign when the general election is called is just plain wrong. As events this week have demonstrated, important issues derive from our membership of the EU. The question of the single European currency will have to be resolved in due course for this country. It will not be possible to conduct a general election campaign--even if the Government want to do so--in which they do not make clear their attitude on the currency and on future developments in Europe.
I have no concern about that, because I and my party are perfectly willing to take those arguments head to head. Indeed, recent political experience in Romsey suggests to us that, when we take arguments head to head, success
sometimes follows. We are certainly prepared to argue the case not only for Europe, but for the single European currency.I have never flinched from the view that constructive engagement in Europe is in the interests of the United Kingdom, but it must be a Europe which is outward looking and is willing to extend its membership to all those countries that share its values. If the treaty of Nice is consistent with those objectives, it will most certainly have my support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |