| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.12 pm
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): With some sadness, I rise to speak. I deeply regret how many--too many--members of my party seem to be massively anti-European and against any advance on what is best for Britain in Europe. They seem to have forgotten that it has been Conservative party policy since the end of the 1939-45 war to press forward to a peacefully united Europe.
The continuation of that policy is easy to substantiate. Winston Churchill said:
- We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved.
- We in Britain are Europeans.
- The talk about loss of sovereignty becomes all the more meaningless when one remembers that practically every nation, including our own, has already been forced by the pressures of the modern world to abandon large areas of sovereignty and to realise that were are now all inter-dependent. No country today, not even the giants of America or Russia, can pursue purely independent policies in defence, foreign affairs or the economic sphere.
I am worried about areas of what appears to be Conservative policy. Let us consider economic and financial matters. Surely any Government of any political standing try to ensure that they pursue a policy that will strengthen the financial and economic structure of this country and do so by making a judgment, at any time, that such a policy would work to the benefit of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to claim that one must take no action at all for a limited number of years, even though taking action might to be Britain's advantage, is absolutely crazy.
One should consider the condemnation of the euro. Just before I came into the Chamber, I was given two sets of figures. At the end of January, the pound sterling stood against the dollar at 1.64. Today, it stands at 1.41, which is a 14 per cent. decrease. The euro has gone down against the pound from 61 to 59.7, which is a 2.1 per cent. decrease. That is not part of the argument that one often hears from Conservative Members. That condemnation suggests that all of Europe wants to work for a vast European state. That is so wrong as to show an absence of both understanding and any contact with the major parliamentarians whom one sees at so many international conferences.
I have just returned from a Berlin meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly, and there is no way that German Members of Parliament will give up their country or have their financial and economic policies run by either the European Union in Brussels or the European bank. They would laugh at anyone who suggested that that is what Germany wants. Exactly the same is true of those parliamentarians who attend meetings of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and of the French.
Only the other day, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was with Mr. Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister. I said to him, "How will the French like being just Europeans?" He said, "Don't be absurd. We will not give up being French. We can be French Europeans; you can be British Europeans. We will not ask Britain to stop being British." Somehow, those arguments are thrust to one side, and that worries me when I think of all that I have seen over my 41 years as a Member of the House. We have worked for greater co-operation in Europe, even though that was not obtained or established over centuries. Therefore, I must briefly discuss the European security and defence initiative. I shall try not to use all my 15 minutes.
Why dismiss the ESDI out of hand? European nations--supposedly our friends and allies--have spent much time working with Britain to see whether the ESDI might work. I am not saying that I know that it would, nor am I saying that I know that it would not. The ESDI should form an integrated part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and must be seen to be working within NATO. Indeed, my information is that those who represent the British Army on many of the NATO committees are exactly the people who will be nominated to work on the ESDI. Therefore, let us ask questions.
How will the burden be shared? Will France and Germany combined contribute only the same number of troops as Britain? If that is so, we must re-examine the matter. How is the finance to be broken down? We must examine that carefully. On more than one occasion on the Floor of the House, I have asked how the heavy lift of those troops will be organised so that they can play an active role.
There are sensible questions to be asked, which will not make our European allies and friends think that we are anti-European in everything that we do, but when we condemn out of hand everything European, they wonder what we are up to. I believe that they have a right to do so.
On the matter of Nice, of course I understand the need to retain the veto. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was right to say that if he has a power of veto, he is in a stronger position to
negotiate. Of course I understand that, but if a major enlargement of the European Union is to take place, so that it will include up to 27 nations, no one can believe that that can be done under the terms and conditions of Maastricht.The idea that at any time a veto can be exercised by two or three nations against the wishes of the vast majority of the European Union does not make sense. We must find some way round, just as we must find some way round the number of Commissioners. The idea that Brussels can be run by 27 Commissioners all sitting at one time is nonsensical.
Aspects of the Nice treaty must be negotiated sensibly. I want the party of which I am so proud to be involved and attempting to assist in order to bring that about, rather than just knocking the Government because they are the Government. There are times in politics when one must rise above being on one side or the other and opposing everything. That is not what I have stood for in the House, nor would I advise that to any of the leaders of my party.
There are times when one must work for what is best for Britain. I believe that we must work, as I am positive is the wish of all the politicians whom I know in Europe, for a Europe of member states, not a Europe of one Government. That is not what is wanted. Anyone who believes that is on the wrong track.
4.22 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): I shall not follow the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) in his passionate declaration of support for the Labour Government and their policies on Europe, although that is interesting to hear. I shall strike a rather different note.
Our debates on six-monthly progress in the European Union are like intermittent meetings of the Sealed Knot society, fighting the battles of 1972, 1975, enlargement, the euro, the Maastricht treaty and so on. Sometimes we swap uniforms. Sometimes each side stands on its head and fights on the opposite side to the one on which it was fighting just a few years ago. The arguments that we hear now from the Opposition would have been advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench only 10 or 15 years ago--more effectively, of course.
It is nice to play a game of musical uniforms from time to time, but I do not want to go over old ground. I want to express my concern about the effect of the euro debate on my own party and the Government, and on British politics generally. The debate is like a Sealed Knot society event in a sealed Chamber--it does not produce strong echoes outside.
We are demonstrating a culture not of lies, but of half-truths, evasions and doublespeak, which destroy the credibility of the Government who articulate them and, at the sides, of the people who articulate them. We are giving people a diet of arguments that they know not to be true.
I do not think that the Government expected the hostile reaction to the proposed European army, so we are now engaged in a debate about when is an army not an army, and when is it Thunderbirds, perhaps with Lady Penelope saying in a guttural German accent, "Achtung, achtung!" It could be an international rescue force, not an army at all.
We move on to the argument about when is a Bill of Rights not a Bill of Rights--when does it have a purpose and when is it just a leaflet to be read and taken into account; when does a Bill of Rights have force, when is a constitution binding and when is it not?
When is economic damage a gain? People are told what they know instinctively is not true. That has been the nature of the euro argument for a long time, and if it goes on, people disbelieve everything that politicians say to them. The argument springs from the origins of our commitment to the European Union. We went in because the British ruling class felt that the country was ungovernable. It had failed to deliver the economic growth that other nations were enjoying, so it might as well hitch itself to the bandwagon of Europe.
The Foreign Office particularly, always seeking a stage to strut on, from which to lecture the world and demonstrate its own effortless superiority, saw Europe as providing that stage. A grateful European peasantry would defer to our superior trade mantle. Things did not quite work out like that, and the institution did not suit us. We entered on terms that were disadvantageous.
The recent memoirs of Sir Con O'Neill--an appropriate name, as far as I can see--made it clear that the purpose of the negotiation was to get in at all costs and ignore every difficulty. That meant that we accepted an extremely disadvantageous settlement and we have been negotiating uphill all the way since, trying to make good ground that we should never have abandoned in the first place, and dealing with an institution in which there is a remorseless drive to ever-closer unity.
We are reluctantly dragged behind, grumbling and explaining, and the electorate get fed up of the spectacle. They do not like it. It offends their sense of national dignity that we should always be in that situation and always be persuaded to go along by the diet of half-truths. Every Government come in committed to a new start, a new relationship with Europe. After the 1975 referendum, Harold Wilson promised a new start. Even Margaret Thatcher came in promising a new start in 1979. John Major came in promising to put us at the heart of Europe, and we came in 1997 with a naive enthusiasm for Europe. It always turns to disappointment, because of the balance of the situation.
Now I see my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, in another incarnation, was a stalwart defender of Euro safeguards and a stalwart opponent of the euro, becoming the euro's strongest supporter and deploying the full economic expertise of the Foreign Office--I am being sarcastic--to tell us how good the euro will be.
The euro is a classic example of the process. We are told that it will offer economic advantages, but clearly it will not, because Britain's trading patterns are different, we are out of kilter and our cycle is different. The euro is undemocratic because it substitutes oligarchy--rule by a central bank--for democratic choice by the electorate, the ability to throw out the Government and the ability to manage our own economy for our purposes. Clearly, we could not go in at the present exchange rate or valuation, yet the argument is still put as a matter of religion.
Euro-enthusiasts must present membership of the euro as a benefit. It will bring stability, we are told. The only instability, however, is the continuous and remorseless decline of the euro. Sterling has been remarkably steady, while the euro has declined against it in what amounts to
a competitive devaluation that benefits the economy and industry of the countries that have adopted it. We are told that 3.5 million jobs depend on continued membership and that, if we do not join the euro, member countries will discriminate against us and inward investment will stop. It is curious that inward investment remains so high. Current investment into European markets could go to any other country, including those with the euro, but it does not; it is still coming here.We are given arguments that present the direct opposite of the reality. Euro supporters, finding that they are losing the argument, say that its critics want to come out of Europe altogether. When presented with that argument, we should make a cool appraisal of the enormous benefits of joining, but we are never told what they are. Over the years, I have tabled questions asking to be informed of them in quantifiable terms. The cost is about £4 billion net against us each year and the trade deficit has been constant since we joined. It is narrowing now only because the oil price has trebled. We face the burden of agricultural protectionism and the incubus of French positions on every international trade negotiation that we enter.
The common fisheries policy is now reaching its full fruition in the decimation of stocks by over-fishing. That happened because it is a political policy, not a conservation policy, which has been deeply damaging to our fish stocks. We face also the threat of carousel retaliation from the Americans because of a policy that we do not support--indeed, we are opposed to it.
What are the benefits of the organisation? As the common external tariff is now only about 4 per cent. and could easily be overleaped if we were out, being out might have the advantage of giving us control of our own policies. However, I do not want to stray into such arguments. My point is that yet another set of fallacious arguments has been produced by the euro enthusiasts, so the electorate is fed a diet of double-talk and deceit.
What is the difference between a super-state and a super-power? One is not possible without the other, but we are expected to believe that there is a difference. What is an army? Is the European army an army or not? Mr. Prodi seems to think that it is an army, but the Government tell us that it is not, and that it involves merely a few troops on holiday from time to time, wearing stars on their uniforms. Is the declaration of rights enforceable? It will certainly be taken into account by the European Court.
Should European countries proceed with a narrower union for a few, and, if so, should a price be exacted? Such a union would recreate the old distinction between the Common Market and the European Free Trade Association. We shall be on the EFTA side of that argument. In such a position, we should be able to negotiate rights and agreements in respect of arrangements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. Why are we not negotiating or insisting on reciprocal benefits for ourselves if the inner core is going to proceed?
I am an enthusiast for enlargement as it would weaken the European institution. We are even told, however, that we cannot have it without the Nice treaty. Is a European public prosecutor, a European constitution or monetary
union necessary for enlargement? That is the machinery of nation building and of constructing a super-nation and is unnecessary for enlargement. We would be only a peripheral influence in such a Europe--we always are. There have been some changes, but the Franco-German coalition is still dominant in Europe. Even if we agreed to all those concessions in order to gain enlargement, its achievement would be uncertain. The German Lander are turning against it in a big way. Germany is reconsidering the policy and France has never been enthusiastic, so if concessions are made as a gateway to enlargement, it will remain doubtful whether that will be achieved.The burden of my complaint is that we are always asked to believe that the evidence of our own eyes, instincts and knowledge is wrong. We are asked to believe that damage is benefit, that the European army is not an army, that a super-power is not a super-state and that a surrender of the veto is not a loss of power. All that nonsense is being fed to an electorate who are instinctively cool to sceptical and very doubtful about the project. That makes the diet of rubbish even more strenuous, because, when the assertions fail to convince the electorate, they become louder, bigger and ever more damaging. I believe in truth in advertising, marketing and sales, but I would like to see some truth in the euro argument, from which it has so far been completely excluded.
That brings me to my worry about the effects on government and politics. I do not like to see the euro argument become a stalking horse for personal disagreements in Cabinet. That discredits the party. I do not like the fact that we are now reaching a point when easy charm is no longer enough when hard decisions have to be made and sold to the people. I am especially worried about the diet of half truths. The Government are a force for good, for change, for building a better society and for redressing social imbalances. Any Government have only a limited degree of credibility to enable them to carry out their mission. If we damage our credibility by using a diet of half truths and distortions to justify a policy that is comparatively unimportant and does so little to advance the lot of the people of this country, we will damage the achievement, future prospects and credibility of the Government. That I do not want to do.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |