| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maples: The Minister wants to call it Eunice after his bus. We are heading for a united states of Europe. At a certain point, this country will have to draw a line on that. The big danger in the Government getting sucked down the road of bringing in defence and taxation is that those people who are mild Euro-sceptics--which is most of the people in Britain--who want and value the EU but who do not want a united states of Europe, will vote not to be in Europe at all, if the alternative is a united states of Europe. We should recognise that, and go no further down the dangerous road that the Government have taken. We should seek a flexible Europe around which we can all agree.
6.25 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I resent it when I am accused of being anti-European, because apart from anything else I am self-evidently European. Not only that, I happen to like the French, which is a trait that the British are not meant to have. I like Europeans, and I am pro-Europe. However, I am not pro the direction in which the European Union is going, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has just spoken about.
It is distressing that experience teaches us so little. I went to Brussels in early 1993 when subsidiarity was all the rage. I heard a British President of the Commission say, "Subsidiarity has been so over-played. Everyone knows that it is not even worth talking about." At the same time, the Minister welcomed the result of the first Danish referendum. I am delighted that he was then a Euro-sceptic, even though he is not prepared to say anything about that now.
During the Maastricht debate, I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and others, and I realised that they won all the arguments. There was no question about that, and for that reason I voted against the treaty on Third Reading, although not beforehand I am ashamed to say.
In Westminster Hall this afternoon, we were discussing EU development aid. It is a shambles, and the Government admit it. It is corrupt and not effective. They want more money so that they can do it better. What nonsense.
The Foreign Secretary said how useful it was to get an agreement on filament size for fishing nets. That is valuable, but it is not much use to most of our fishermen because they have gone out of business. They have left fishing because of the common fisheries policy. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is wittering away, but I shall discuss the matter with him later.
The common agricultural policy is the biggest and the best example of what I am talking about. My father-in-law was a farmer until, I am delighted to say, he retired
recently. I asked him, "If when you went into farming 40 years ago someone had told you that you would be paid to leave your fields fallow, would you have said they were nuts?" That is what happened with set aside.How about quotas? That is even better. My father- in-law almost became bankrupt because of quotas, but he managed to come out of dairy farming and rent his quota. He made more money lying in bed than he had ever made milking because of quotas. I am delighted that the Government now realise that quotas must go, because they are nonsense.
The CAP has been bad for consumers and for the environment and disastrous for farming. How can Brussels fix a common agricultural policy for the reindeer herders of northern Sweden, the olive growers of Portugal and the tobacco growers of Greece? It is laughable. It does not work, so let us admit that and consider how to proceed.
I am constrained by time, but I want to deal briefly with the European army. I am pro-European and have worked with European armies. I have worked with the Germans and the French, and enjoyed it very much. We are different, but we get on well and we have co-operated well. What is the motivation behind the European army? It is quite clear. The French have been trying to decouple America from Europe ever since de Gaulle left the military structure, I think in 1968. The French are quite open about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon gave an excellent quote on this issue. The French want to have more influence over Europe. In a letter in The Daily Telegraph today, Caspar Weinberger states what many in America feel, but I do not want to labour that point given the time.
What is the experience of EU countries working together on defence? The French disagreed radically with our Iraqi policy, which the Minister should be pretty clear on. They were accused of being deceptive and totally outrageous because of their policy on Iraq. They do not have the same interests, and do not react in the same way. It is not anti-French or anti-European to say that: it is quite straightforward. Rwanda is suffering terribly, and it is partly because of the attitude of the French that we cannot agree on an aid and sanctions policy for that country. But what is worst of all about the European army proposals is that the result would be ineffective. We would not have the heavy lift, the command and control or the communications and intelligence support that we get from NATO.
As we know, the defence veto is on the table at Nice. I understand that the French would like it to go. The Government say that they will veto it, and I am delighted, but it will be back on the table at the next summit. It is no good the Minister yawning, because this is rather important. The veto will come back, and our experience of the inexorable drift tells us that it will continue to come back until, finally, the aspirations and the agenda of our continental partners catch up with us.
We know what many people in Europe intend, because they have told us. We should believe what they say. Why do we dismiss it with such gay abandon? When Joschka Fischer talks about wanting to elect a president, that is what he wants: he means it. They are honest about the issue on the continent. They say, "Of course we want political integration. That is what the euro is all about, and that is what a European army--a European standing force--is all about." We should believe them.
I shall not compare Joschka Fischer or anyone else to Hitler, but let us consider what happened in the 1930s. Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf", which described his grandiose plans. Everyone said, "Ha, what nonsense." The Germans said, "We have hired Hitler", because they believed that they could control him. But he meant what he said, and look how we suffered.
I am not suggesting that things will go the same way now. I do say, however, that when people tell us something we should believe what they say--unless, perhaps, the people concerned are some of the Ministers in the present Government.
6.31 pm
Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk): We have heard some excellent and spirited speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, expressing genuinely held and diverse views. I congratulate all who have spoken.
The debate has featured contrasting visions of Europe, reflected in the contrasting agendas for Nice and beyond. We have heard about the programme for reform and greater flexibility, endorsed by the Opposition. We have also heard about the drive towards integration supported by the Government and the Liberal Democrats, involving the charter of fundamental rights, the EU defence policy and the further loss of the national veto.
The Labour vision of Europe as a super-power, which drives relentlessly towards integration, is not the only vision on offer. It is a recipe for neither harmony nor unity in Europe. Rather, it will produce conflicts and dissatisfaction as national interests are overridden. As The Economist has said:
- A Europe in which all must converge and co-operate on all sorts of subjects, heading dreamily for "ever closer union", is not likely to be either happy or sustainable. Those virtues are likelier to arise if different groups of members can co-operate on different topics, forming a multi-system Europe.
Other EU leaders have painted a clear picture of the direction in which they want the EU to go, but our Prime Minister's epoch-shattering explanation of why so many EU citizens feel alienated from EU institutions was expressed in his proposal for a second chamber. Perhaps he was emboldened by the mind-boggling success of his reforms of the House of Lords.
The year 2004 will mark the passing of a full decade and a half since the fall of the Berlin wall, but a recent Commission communication led us to believe that that estimate might be overly optimistic, and that late 2004 or even 2005 might be a more realistic date for accession. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is absolutely right: the accession process is far too dirigiste.
The Government would have us believe that delays in enlargement have been caused by an unwillingness to extend qualified majority voting. That is the logic of their
position--our opposition to a further loss of the veto would block enlargement. The delay has been caused by nothing of the sort. It has been caused by the total failure of leadership in Europe by the Government, particularly over the need for financial reform.Let us turn to agriculture, not a subject dear to the heart of the Government, who so truly despise rural Britain. Recently, we had a major statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I missed it, but I do not think that I heard the word "farming" anywhere in the statement. Perhaps it was because he was embarrassed that farmers' earnings have fallen by 90 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to the sugar beet industry. We wait for the Minister's comments on that. He will be aware of the threat to the industry because of the two proposals emanating from the European Commission, which appear to imply both quota and price cuts, on top of a 30 per cent. cut in beet and sugar prices in the past four years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) talked about farming. He is right: there is a clear and absolute need for substantial reform of the common agricultural policy. We have called repeatedly for reforms that allow more decisions to be made at a national level, yet the issue that is most responsible for delaying enlargement is not even on the IGC agenda.
On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he hoped further reform would be discussed in 2004, for the financial perspective starting in 2006. He maintained his stance that the Berlin agreement was sufficient for enlargement. Patently, it is not. The Berlin reforms involved a watering down of proposals that were already inadequate. Since then, true reform has not even been discussed, yet the plain truth is that, if the CAP were extended in its current form to eastern Europe, it would bankrupt the EU. The EU's unwillingness to apply uniform subsidy rules is behind much of the dissatisfaction, legitimately, in applicant states. Therefore, the Government have failed to grapple with the problem not only of farming in this country, but of agriculture throughout an enlarged European Union. It is a disgraceful abdication of leadership which imperils the very process of enlargement.
Another obstacle in the way of enlargement is the absence of real flexibility, and the attempt to shoehorn the applicant states into rigid conformity with a plethora of needless red tape and regulation. Commission President Prodi recently admitted that it was in areas such as social policy that the biggest delays in adopting the acquis had occurred. Both accession states and existing states should have more freedom to decide whether such measures meet their national interests. Therefore, whereas the Labour party says that our insistence on CAP reform and flexibility would hold up enlargement, the opposite is true. It is the lack of common agriculture reform and the lack of flexibility that will hold up successful enlargement.
The tragic result of Labour's failure of leadership and its willingness to accept an integrationist agenda is that that agenda is encouraged even more. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) pointed out, talking about a super-power, as the Prime Minister did, encourages that. Is it any wonder that a Prime Minister who continues to move towards his super-power,
or super-state, while saying one thing in Britain and doing another in Europe, gives that impression? Is not that direction highly damaging to Britain and to Europe as a whole?At Nice, the charter of fundamental rights will be proclaimed. As the Commission and many others have indicated, it will impact our domestic law, as was spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). The whole system of British justice based on common law and practice will give way to more and more judge-led laws. Parliament will become increasingly marginalised, yet senior politicians within the EU do not disguise their desire for that to be the basis for a written constitution for the EU and legally enforceable. Just as the British people have viewed with hilarity the Minister's bus trips across the country, so his European counterparts heard with utter disbelief that he regarded that hugely significant document as on a par with the Beano magazine. Where is the reality?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said, the issue of the number of Commissioners and the weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers is a pragmatic one. Of course resolving it is necessary for enlargement, but that certainly does not require a treaty of Nice.
After he came into office, the Prime Minister made it clear that he opposed absorption of the Western European Union into the European Union. So, what has prompted the change of heart? Was it loyal NATO member countries, such as Norway and Turkey, pleading for a European Union defence effort? Was it the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary beating a path to No. 10 Downing street demanding an EU rapid reaction force? Was it senior members of our armed forces, past and present, demanding it? Was it a whole series of former Defence and Foreign Secretaries, of both parties, saying that it would strengthen our defence efforts? Of course it was not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said it all and so well. The Government's defence commitment in the European Union has aroused massive disquiet in the United Kingdom. Let Labour Members understand why that is--although I appreciate that it is difficult for almost any Minister to understand it.
No institution is more valued in our country than our armed forces. Remembrance Sunday is truly a moment in our national calendar when the entire nation comes together. What has affronted the British people is the way in which politics--and certainly not a desire to improve our defence capability--have so blatantly been at the heart of the decision. Because the Government have failed so miserably to persuade the British people on the single currency, the Prime Minister is using the decision to demonstrate his European credentials.
Did I really hear someone say that the French and the Germans would have gone ahead with the creation of the EU army regardless? Does the Minister believe that the EU army could possibly have been created without a British presence? I have the privilege to have more than 20,000 American service personnel living in my constituency who have, for decades, with selfless generosity, protected us and western Europe. Particularly at a time when the new United States President will be
reviewing his global strategy, the Government's commitment to the EU army is wrong in principle, wrong in timing and imperils the very structure that has helped to preserve our freedom and democracy.Before the previous general election, the Prime Minister wrote an article entitled "My Love for £", in which he said:
- I know exactly what the British people feel when they see the Queen's head on a £10 note.
I feel it too. There's a very strong emotional tie to the Pound which I fully understand. Of course there are emotional issues involved in the single currency.
It's not just a question of economics. It's about the sovereignty of Britain and constitutional issues, too.
The Foreign Secretary has rattled on about the hostile press and patriotism while quarrelling with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, every hon. Member knows, and every European Union Foreign Minister views with incredulity, the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer effectively has control of the policy. His five tests for entry are totally subjective and make him master of ceremonies at the single currency venture to which all the other countries are signed up.
The Minister for Europe has been touring Britain seeking to persuade the British people of the virtues of the single currency. We encourage him to do so. Every time that either he or the Foreign Secretary appears on television defending the Government's policy on Europe, another 10,000 people reject it. Ever since the Minister of State started his epic tour of Britain, support for the single currency has plunged. I invite him to keep up the good work.
Ours is a forward-looking vision for the future of Europe; ours is a positive approach; ours is the path to harmony and unity in Europe. The Government are pursuing a policy on Europe in this country that goes against the grain of the British people, who actually cherish being subjects of the United Kingdom and want to stay that way. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe reflect no vision and no clarity about what the EU should look like or our role in it. Given their credibility and political stature, Britain's failure of leadership in Europe is in the interests of neither Britain nor the EU itself.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |