| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Duncan: We can't work it out, Bill. Tell us who it was.
Mr. Cash: I shall have to tell the hon. Gentleman later. It will all emerge in due course.
The plain fact is that we already have a European flag, passport and anthem, and we now have the brave new world represented by the call for European political parties. As if all that were not enough, a proposed amendment to the Schleicher report requires assent to the so-called charter of fundamental rights as a criterion for funding.
No doubt the Minister knows all this. He has not been in his job for long, but there are some real crackers here, and I am sure he has caught up with them by now.
To obtain consent for funding under the proposals, including those in the Schleicher report, it would be necessary to express agreement with the charter of fundamental rights—which, as we all know, we are not even allowed to debate. That is a very unfair arrangement: we are not allowed to stipulate the basis on which we would be prevented, under the proposals in the report, from receiving funding that would enable us to exist as a political party. That would rule out the Tory party at a stroke.
The report contains some superficial reassurance in regard to whether a Euro-realist party could exist in the European Parliament. It says:
- "Parties need not necessarily"—
- "be advocates of European integration; Euro-sceptical parties may also be supported if their policies focus on issues of European integration"—
Mr. Bercow: I always applaud my hon. Friend's careful study of the minutiae of these matters, but does he not agree, on a broader level, that the very notion of pan-European political parties is transparently absurd, given that they have no demos to represent? Does he not agree that they would only cease to be absurd and become meaningful if there were among the peoples of Europe a common identity, a common purpose and a common willingness to make equal sacrifices to achieve that purpose? As none of those conditions exists, what is the point of such parties?
Mr. Cash: Excepting one or two minor matters that have arisen recently, which I am glad to say we have now put behind us, I always agree with my hon. Friend,
particularly on the issues that are before us. Three cheers for the fact that he is here fighting with us on this particular issue! That goes to prove that we really are a political party—and we will remain one, by the way.Hurrah, hurrah that we are allowed to focus on issues of European integration! As I have said, however, the reassurance is very thin. The report goes on,
- "They"—
- "are seen as instrumental in securing public support for the European integration project."
- "So that's all right then. And remember it will be either federalist 'wise men' or the federalist EP—
- "which will decide on eligibility."
- "We decided to fight back. The Schleicher report was the subject of an extraordinary procedural ambush in the Strasbourg plenary on 16 May 2001, planned and executed by a group of committed Euro-realist Tory MEPs".
Mr. Cash: I will only say that the Tory MEPs managed to ambush the project, but the triumph did not last long: it was all over the next day following a procedural motion.
The proposal raises some important questions. As I have said, the British Conservative party clearly does not qualify under the arrangements proposed in the regulations. [Interruption.] Would the Minister be kind enough to intervene? Perhaps he will be able to help me as I come to my peroration. He does not want to. He wants to deal with the point during his winding-up speech.
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): The Minister has his notes.
Mr. Cash: Indeed. I saw a lot of frantic scribbling going on over there. I trust it is accurate but we will find out later.
I have to confess that I had something of a tiff with—is he Lord Patten, Sir Christopher Patten or Mr. Christopher Patten? I cannot remember. At the time, I had a few words of disagreement with him upstairs over the question of the European People's party and our application to join it—it lasted about an hour and a half.
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I fail to see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's argument to the new clause.
Mr. Cash: It is absolutely relevant and I say that with great respect, Mrs. Heal. The European People's party is in fact a group in the European Parliament. It is absolutely relevant to the question of where the money will go. I think that that is a fair point. It is bang slap wallop within the arrangements that are stipulated by the regulations.
That was some time ago. We have heard from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman that we are rather loosely connected with that strange body, the EPP. It would be strange if we were fully connected with it. After all it is exclusively federal. I am glad to get that reassurance from my hon. Friend.
This is a matter of considerable importance to the Conservative party for many reasons. If we ask the question in Conservative party terms, "What is a political party?" we go back to the great dictum of Edmund Burke, the greatest exponent of the philosophy of the Conservative party and a person of whom we should all be inordinately proud. He said that a political party is a body of men—of course now he would say men and women—who are joined together in the national interest and on a particular principle on which they are all agreed.
That raises an important question. There is no doubt that the present proposal is not in the national interest. It is in the European interest. That is the big difference. The definition of a political party is a body of men and women who are all agreed on a particular principle. That raises a fundamental question about who governs. There are big issues here.
It was Disraeli, one of our greatest Prime Ministers, who said that the Tory party is a national party or it is nothing. He did not say nationalistic and his remarks referred to the democratic nation state. I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were here. I would like him to hear some of the debate because I know that he is in favour of the Nice treaty; he is in favour of all these arrangements.
Against that background, I would like the Minister to answer the questions that I have posed, and some of my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. David: May I correct a misapprehension that was suggested earlier with regard to the sitting of the European Scrutiny Committee this morning? The reason why the Committee decided not to discuss this subject was that we knew full well that this debate was taking place this afternoon; it was as simple as that.
Every hon. Member would surely agree that in the European Union there is a huge democratic deficit. There are many ways in which we can reduce that deficit, and one of the key ways is by ensuring that far more scrutiny and attention are given to European issues—and, indeed, to the House. We also need to think about how all the European Union institutions function and relate to each other. A debate is about to begin on governance in the European Union and how we define subsidiarity in determining where power can and should lie in the EU.
It is important that we consider how the European Parliament develops as an institution. One of the positive things about the Nice treaty is that it gives extra, albeit modest, powers to the European Parliament. We need to ensure that the European Parliament, along with the member states, can monitor the European Commission effectively and hold it to account.
That could incrementally reduce the democratic deficit in the EU, but it is important to recognise that there is another way to do that: ensuring that there is sufficient debate, discussion and policy formulation among political parties at European level. That is vital. Only when we encourage debate at European level will we have proper
control over European Union institutions. They cannot exist in a political vacuum. That is why, gradually over time, political parties have developed.Hon. Members have referred to a number of political parties. I am proud to be a member of the party of European Socialists as well as of the Labour party. The pan-European parties have come together naturally, voluntarily and out of choice. People have decided that it is necessary for them to come together to advance a political perspective.
It is up to the Conservative party whether it wants to be part of that process, but it should not try to impede the democracy and development of others simply because it does not want to be part of it. That is its choice. Equally, it is our choice. It is undemocratic of people to try to undermine what they do not agree with.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |