Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320 - 325)

TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2000

RT HON ROBIN COOK MP, MR EMYR JONES PARRY CMG AND MR KIM DARROCH

  320. Can you give us an illustration of what would be the subject of enhanced co-operation if these provisions went through under pillar one?
  (Mr Cook) I would be reluctant to attempt that, Chairman. We are content to listen to our partners concerns about this. If, for instance, in the case of implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy there was to be a smaller group going ahead, it may well be us that go ahead. I personally would hesitate to put forward an example.

  321. Because it is very difficult to find one, as we have not had one already?
  (Mr Cook) You are perfectly correct to point out that we have not had one—indeed, I have made this observation myself. Also, once you deduct issues like the Single Market there is limited room for this to apply. I do think it should be born in mind that those who are arguing for this—for instance, particularly the Benelux countries—are not thinking of the present European Union (and remember this has all been done in the context of enlargement); they foresee an outcome in which there may be a European Union of 26 Member States. To take one area which they themselves do refer to, the issue of the environment in, say, the Netherlands and Denmark, there is extremely high public pressure for high standards of environmental protection. It may not necessarily be the case that the applicant countries, coming as they do from a much lower GDP base, would necessarily be capable or wish to adopt such high standards in environment and, therefore, they argue there may be a occasions in the future when a number of countries may wish to proceed with enhanced co-operation on environmental issues which not everybody might take part in. That then brings you to a debate of whether a group of countries can do so without it distorting the Single Market, for instance, and could not apply environmental regulations on trade. I understand the point they are making—it is a valid one.

  322. If I could summarise the position we are going to take—these revised draft proposals we would go along with them or would we dig our heels in?
  (Mr Cook) We do not see any reason to object to what is done and on the table which appears to fully protect our interests and, indeed, to take the example of the environment if it was to proceed, we may wish to be part of that inner group.

Mr Maples

  323. There have been some other changes though—it talks about one of the purposes of enhanced co-operation being to reinforce the process of integration, and what used to be a majority of members who had to want to participate and it is now eight, which is the current majority but it might not be in the future. There is a provision in the Amsterdam Treaty that any Member who was not part of the initial group could join later. That has now changed as well. It seems to me this is a very different proposal, substantially different, and particularly if countries that do not want to join have given up their veto.
  (Mr Cook) First of all, we would not accept an exclusive form of enhanced co-operation. We would wish to insist on the right of any member having the right to take part in any subsequent state. On that point, I can assure you we would still insist very much on what was part of the architecture of the original proposal. On the threshold of enhanced co-operation, I personally do not have a difficulty with eight. Eight is a very substantial number, whether or not it is the majority of a European Union of 20 or whether it is only a majority of a European Union of 15, and I would not necessarily wish to stand in the way of eight members going ahead, provided what they are going ahead with does not damage our interests. It may well be in the case of the environment we might ourselves want to be part of that eight.

  324. Finally on the CFSP, I understood you to say that we would not be prepared to allow any enhanced co-operation in this area to go ahead unless there was a veto from those who do not want to participate in stopping it. That is not the way the current draft works because it refers to the use of Article 23(2) of the Treaty of the European Union and refers to bits of that which do not actually include the right of a veto. Are you saying quite categorically we do not allow enhanced co-operation in the Common Foreign and Security Policy area without a veto on behalf of those countries that do not want to join, if they stated they were of a crucial national interest?
  (Mr Cook) What I was stating was that we do not see the case for majority voting on the adoption of a policy. We have been willing to look at the case of majority voting on enhanced co-operation on the implementation of policy. It may well be right that the current draft does not fully reflect our negotiating position but then that is not an agreed text.

Sir David Madel

  325. Foreign Secretary, do we want Nice to fix the date of the next IGC? If we do, do we want that date to be 2004?
  (Mr Cook) Our position is that we believe that the first new members should be present from the start of the next IGC and take part in the IGC. We have already had an extensive debate as to whether or not 2004 is a realistic target date for the first new members. I think it is difficult to be precise about when a future IGC may actually get underway. At this present point we have not taken a view on that. The issue of principle I think is very important, and those who pressed for an IGC to commence in 2004 we would want to see make a commitment that they will themselves work for enlargement to take place before 2004. These are two interlocking issues, both of which are subject to wide margins of judgment as to whether or not 2004 is the right year, and at this point I do not want to commit myself.

  Chairman: Foreign Secretary, a relaxing three days at Nice it will not be. I would like to thank you and your colleagues.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 11 January 2001