| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.57 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. Members of Parliament always wants to speak on the key topic of the moment, and that is certainly true of the subject of today's debate. I hoped that we would be able to have a rational and sensible debate, but I have just heard the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) citing foreign politicians from capital cities around the European Union who have a great integrationist agenda. He said that we should read Jacques Chirac's speeches. Well, I read a recent speech by Mr. Chirac in which he said:
- I do not think that one can have a federal Europe--the creation of a United States of Europe is not realistic, because not a single nation is prepared to give up its identity.
Over the past few weeks, on the subject of Europe, we have witnessed our national newspapers publish misinformation, lies and distortion on a scale that seems designed to whip up mass hysteria. That sort of thing never ceases to amaze me, but I should have ceased to be amazed by now, because that is what happens in the run-up to every European summit, especially intergovernmental conferences. I believe that, even in their own terms, some of the anti-European newspapers, such as the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Telegraph, go too far for their own good. At some stage the general public will say:
- The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
We are discussing the substance of the intergovernmental conference at Nice, especially the key challenge of enlargement. Apparently, an enlargement policy is supported by every political party represented in the Chamber. That is for two reasons: first, the policy is morally right--the countries of the former eastern bloc have gone through huge change and they should therefore be welcomed into the European Union; and, secondly, there is economic self-interest--moving from a single market of 370 million people to one approaching 500 million is clearly in the interests of British exporters and British jobs.
Given that there is consensus on enlargement, it is crucial that we introduce some momentum into the process. There is a real and palpable danger of massive disillusion within some of the former eastern bloc countries, which have gone through a process of economic transformation amounting almost to economic revolution. Massive sacrifices have been associated with that. There is a real danger that the peoples of those countries will feel that, having played by the rules and done what has been asked of them, the process of enlargement is being held up.
I am particularly concerned about the stance of the French and German Governments, who appear to be dragging their feet. I hope that the Minister for Europe will take that point on board. I hope that from the Nice IGC, or the Swedish summit in the middle of next year, we can arrive at a specific target date for the first of the former eastern bloc countries to join the EU. Without that, the process could slip off the agenda.
If we are to enlarge, we need a change in the decision-making procedures within the EU, which undoubtedly means an extension of qualified majority voting. That is not in key areas where we believe that the national prerogative of a national Parliament should apply, but in areas where we believe that QMV would be in our national interests. The point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Unfortunately, it is one that all too often does not come out in these debates.
Britain has a proud and successful record of winning the argument on QMV. My right hon. Friend said that, under the current QMV procedures, had the veto existed
in 80 of the past 85 qualified majority votes, the British position would have been lost. The position that we were pursuing in our national interests would have been blocked by a smaller EU country. Those statistics have not been mentioned in the past week. That point needs to be made powerfully and clearly.I am sick and tired of Euro-sceptics or anti-Europeans parading themselves as sole defenders of the British national interest. I believe passionately that their belief in isolationism and the constant no, no, no ill-serves the British national interest and the needs of British people, British jobs and British industry.
As for reweighting, the Nice IGC is presented as something that is catastrophically against the British national interest, yet under current voting procedures it is possible for the majority population within an enlarged EU not to be able to muster a blocking minority. That is unsustainable and undemocratic. As a result of the proposals that will be made at Nice, for the first time since 1973 there will be a relative change in voting strengths in the interests of Britain. There is no mention of those issues in our national newspapers and in our debate with the Conservative party.
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rammell: No. Other Members have not given way because we are subject to time limitation.
I shall move on to the European security and defence co-operation policy. The reaction of some of our national newspapers and that of the Conservative party during the past week has been astonishing and a complete misrepresentation of the facts. It is crucial that we revisit the facts. We are talking not about an instrument of collective defence, but about a peacekeeping humanitarian operation. We are talking only of the peacekeeping force being engaged when NATO and the Americans do not wish to be involved.
That is especially important given the evidence that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave yesterday to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) asked him what would happen if the rapid reaction force was committed in a certain part of Europe and there was then a major international crisis and NATO required our troops. Could we unilaterally withdraw our peacekeeping operation from the rapid reaction force and deploy it for NATO purposes? The answer to that question was an emphatic yes. That underlines more clearly than anything else that the rapid reaction force is hostile neither to Britain's membership of NATO nor to the security that NATO brings us.
NATO welcomes defence co-operation within Europe, as do senior, sensible and eminent Conservatives. Lord Hurd, the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, has already been quoted in support of the proposition--I do not remember him as the most fanatically Europhile Conservative politician--and his support has been echoed by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). The initiative has been supported also by the Americans. Madeleine Albright has supported
explicitly what the Government and the EU propose. Recently, William Cohen, the US Defence Secretary, who is a Republican, said explicitly--there was no equivocation:
- Let me be clear on America's position. We agree with this goal--not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction.
There must be some honesty in this debate. Labour may be wrong on European defence co-operation, but I do not believe that we are. However, to suggest, as the Conservative party does, and as many national newspapers do, that we are imperilling the country's defence and security is beneath contempt. That suggestion ill-serves the important public debate that we should be having on the issue.
European defence co-operation is far from being contradictory to our membership of NATO. Without such an initiative, we would put the future holistic entity of NATO at risk. In the United States, whether we have a Bush or a Gore presidency, an increasing number of politicians are questioning the role of the US as the world's peacekeeper. They question why the US must constantly step in and sort out problems in Europe's backyard. There are certainly people in the US Administration and beyond it who are undertaking a strategic analysis that suggests that American priorities should be elsewhere in the world, and not within Europe. If we do not bolster our defence capability to police humanitarian operations, the Americans will be far less willing to support and help us through the NATO alliance.
Lady Thatcher has intervened in the debate over the past few days. That was put on the front page of The Sun yesterday and it was highlighted by the Daily Mail as something that was startling and unusual. A former Conservative leader attacking a Labour Government on Europe in the run-up to a general election does not strike me as shocking, amazing or surprising. We need to get real. With the intervention of people such as Lady Thatcher, we are seeing raw and not particularly enterprising party politics. It has nothing to do with Britain's national interests.
I should have thought that if there were any issues on which Lady Thatcher would lecture the Government, Britain's leadership on Europe would be the last of them. Let us not forget that her leadership on Europe was the key issue that led to her Conservative colleagues removing her from office--that is the historical reality--and she was undermined by Geoffrey Howe and other Conservatives on many occasions. If anyone is to lecture us on any issue, it certainly should not be Margaret Thatcher on what Britain ought to do to pursue its national interest in the European Union.
What is the condition of the Conservative party in the debate? I am not one of those politicians who believes that the Labour Government will be in power for ever--10, 15 or 20 years perhaps, but at some stage the Government will lose office. Were we to be replaced by a Conservative
party in such a condition over Europe, God help us all. The splits are still present and still fundamental. That was emphasised recently by Leon Brittan, who said that the
- Conservatives have adopted policies that would gradually pull Britain out of the EU
The policy changes and lurches incoherently--from issue to issue, from day to day, from week to week. First we hear that every existing EU treaty is up for renegotiation, but the debate moves on when it is made clear that no EU Government supports that. Then we hear that there is to be a referendum on the outcome of the Nice summit. Although I listened carefully to the shadow Foreign Secretary, who spoke on the issue for five minutes, I am still not clear what is Conservative party policy and whether the Conservatives would commit themselves to holding a referendum on Nice.
Although the rhetoric is about moving into isolation and out of the EU, the reality is that, were a Conservative Government returned to office, they would not pull out into complete isolation, but would acquiesce grudgingly and have no influence whatever in the EU. We tried that. We tested it. It did not work.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |