| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Feb 2003 : Column 113—continued
Convention on the Future of Europe
6. Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): If he will make a statement on his policy aims in the Convention on the Future of Europe. [98787]
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Government's aim in the Convention on the Future of Europe is to build a Europe that is better understood, more democratically accountable and works better.
The convention's recommendations will be discussed in an intergovernmental conference, when Heads of State or Government will make decisions, acting by unanimity. The outcome will be put to Parliament before ratification.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As the Minister knows, the convention has published a draft constitution, which is organised on a federal basis, as it puts it, with massive new powers, especially over economic policy, and with full legal incorporation of the EU charter of rights. Since all that is contrary to the Government's previously expressed policy positions, will he either explain why they are making all those concessions in the convention or instruct the Government representative, who is not in his Department, to start saying no, clearly and unambiguously, to the new constitution? It will be impossible to retrieve all the new concessions at the intergovernmental conference that the Minister mentioned.
Mr. MacShane: The key noun in that question was "draft". Member states have already tabled more than 1,000 amendments to the proposal. It will be changed and emended by all the interested parties, including the British Government, the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of the House of Commons and the other place who represent British interests on the convention. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will make a doughty job of presenting his point of view.
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly): Will the Minister join me in welcoming the convention's great emphasis on developing parliamentary democracy, with regard not only to the European Parliament but to national Parliaments?
Mr. MacShane: Indeed. I hope that that avenue will be explored further in the remaining months of the convention's work. The Government and, I believe the House, want to see national Parliaments brought fully into play in terms of subsidiarity and in terms of oversight of what the EU does.
Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley): Given the far-reaching changes envisaged in the constitution, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) alluded, will the Minister explain whether the
Government intend to put the matter not only to Parliament, but to the people in a referendum—and if not, why not?
Mr. MacShane: This country does not have a tradition of plebiscites that allow populists to range over plebiscitary politics, using their weekly magazines to pump out endless anti-European propaganda. Every previous treaty from the treaty of accession in 1973 to Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam has been debated properly in the House, and I think that ratification by Parliament is the right way forward.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): Reference has already been made to the charter of rights. Can my hon. Friend say whether it is still the position of Her Majesty's Government that they want the EU to sign up to the European convention on human rights and want that convention to be the primary human rights document for Europe as a whole? Are the Government prepared to introduce the necessary changes into the European convention, along with our allies and other members of the European Union, to ensure the possibility of accession by the EU?
Mr. MacShane: As my hon. Friend knows, that issue has been discussed; indeed, I discussed it recently with parliamentary delegates at the Council of Europe. The Government of France, for example, have grave reservations about the proposal. We have incorporated the European convention on human rights into our domestic legislation. The issue of whether the European Union as a whole should adhere to it is very technical, and it will be properly examined and discussed by the convention. Finally, of course, it will be decided by the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): Will the Minister confirm that a European constitution containing a legally enforceable charter of fundamental rights, the creation of a separate legal personality for Europe and the subjection of our foreign and defence policy to European jurisdiction would constitute a crossing of the rubicon between a Europe of sovereign nations and a federal Europe? Does he accept that no democratic Government have the right to surrender such fundamental areas of sovereignty without the specific consent of the people? Given that the Government support referendums on mayors, the euro and regional assemblies, will he now accede to the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) for a referendum before any new European treaty containing such a surrender is agreed or ratified, so that the British people can reject it out of hand?
Mr. MacShane: Let me say this:
- "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."
- "I'm very worried about enlargement . . . the European Union is . . . going to get much worse when we try and absorb a lot of other countries with different cultures."
-
That is an extract from remarks made on the BBC by the Conservative party's representative on the European Convention, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). I should like him now to say that the Conservative party supports enlargement and that we should not insult and patronise our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic with such extremist, anti-east European nonsense.
Mr. MacShane: I was not in the House at the time, but I recall the folklore memories of nights and days spent debating the Maastricht treaty. It will be the House of Commons and Parliament that will decide whether to ratify any treaty that is the outcome of the intergovernmental conference and the convention. I have complete confidence that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will deal with the matter in the traditional British parliamentary way.
Middle East
7. Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): If he will make a statement on the implications for global security of securing a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. [98788]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): A settlement of the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians would plainly enhance global security, including the security of the immediate region and of Europe and the United Kingdom. We are in active support of the Quartet of the European Union, the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Nations in working for renewed negotiations, including the publication of the road map to give effect to President Bush's vision of a two-state solution by 2005.
This morning, I spoke with Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority to welcome the constitutional changes that he has announced and press for the early appointment of a credible Prime Minister with effective powers.
Mr. Gray: The whole House will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for reconfirming that he views the peace process as central to future global security. Do his close allies in the United States take the same view? Does he think that there is any possibility of the central importance of the peace process being compromised in any way by action against Iraq?
Mr. Straw: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the United States takes broadly the same view. However, it certainly does not take precisely the
same view. We have been encouraging it to be more forward in recognising the need to implement fully the very welcome statements that President Bush made last June and the very welcome United Nations Security Council resolution that was passed at the behest of the United States and that laid down for the first time that there should be a clear two-state solution. We continue in very intense dialogue with our American and other friends.As far as conflict with Iraq is concerned, all Palestinians—including Ministers—to whom I have spoken have made it crystal clear that they are the last people in the world to have anything good to say on behalf of Saddam Hussein. The case for advancing the peace process and trying to continue to get both sides together stands on its own merits. However, I accept—given the allegation of double standards—that the case for pursuing it is all the greater when set against the possibility of military action in Iraq.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): Given the current readiness of the United States and the United Kingdom to discount UN Security Council vetoes, can my right hon. Friend estimate how many UN resolutions there would have been on Israel and Palestine over three and a half decades, and of what seriousness, had it not been for the use or threatened use of the US veto?
Mr. Straw: We are not discounting the use of the veto. As has every member state of the United Nations, we have had to acknowledge that there could be circumstances in which we would take action without a second resolution. However, let us be clear. As the Command Paper that has been published this morning makes clear, the authority for any military action in respect of Iraq is based very firmly on UN Security Council resolutions that have already been passed. It is of profound importance that that point is understood. I invite my hon. Friend to read, in particular, resolution 687, which agreed a conditional ceasefire, and resolution 1441, including its final operative paragraph.
As far as Security Council resolutions in respect of Israel and Palestine are concerned, we want to see those implemented fully. What I know is that, if we stand by and fail to implement the resolutions in respect of Iraq—where the violation of the United Nations authority is the greatest—there is no prospect of getting resolutions implemented in respect of other conflict areas, including Israel and Palestine. The reverse is also the case.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton): Our intentions, inevitably, are principally to do with Iraq. However, I agree with the Foreign Secretary and with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the peace process in the nearer middle east is crucial to the prospects for peace in the wider region. Those who think that the two cases can be treated separately are fooling themselves and risk making the world a more dangerous place.
Will the Foreign Secretary give the House his assessment of the security situation in Gaza and the west bank over the past few weeks—areas that have seen the deaths of quite a lot of Palestinians? Given that Ariel Sharon has been talking to Abu Ala, that he has at last formed a majority Government with Shinui and the
National Religious party, and that—as the Foreign Secretary has said—Mr. Arafat is prepared to accept a more ceremonial role, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that constructive talks are at last resuming and that they stand some chance of staying on track?
Mr. Straw: The security assessment in Gaza and the west bank is serious. In recent weeks, according to a count made yesterday, there have been 41 deaths of Palestinians, principally at the hands of the Israeli defence force, and one death within the state of Israel itself. I greatly regret those deaths; I regret the deaths whatever side they are on. We have called on, and continue to call on, the Palestinians to condemn terrorism and take effective action to control terrorists within the occupied territories and Israel. At the same time, we call on the state of Israel to act proportionately and in accordance with international law in the actions that it takes.
On the second matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I have been in active discussions with a number of representatives of the Palestinian Authority—they were over here last week, led by Yasser Abed Rabbo of the Palestinian Authority—and although the situation is dire, there are some improving signs because of the position now taken by the Palestinian Authority. But now that a Government have been formed in Israel, we look to Israel and the United States to agree to the early publication of the road map that was endorsed by President Bush on 20 December.
Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West): Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he expects to be taken seriously in his determination to deal with the very real problems that Iraq poses to the rest of the world when we have assembled an army and, for the second time, flown it past the most blatant example of daily repression and breaking of international humanitarian law by a Government who are signatories to the convention? Can he tell me why he expects that country to act proportionately, when it has never done so in the past, when there is another right-wing Government in Israel?
Mr. Straw: I understand, as I said earlier, the argument about double standards and the fact that it has some resonance based on fact, not only in the Arab and Islamic world, but in the wider world. But what I would say to my hon. Friend is that Security Council resolutions such as 242, 338, 1397 and 1402 impose obligations not only on the Israelis, yes, to recognise a viable state, to withdraw from the settlements, to negotiate the future of East Jerusalem and to deal with the issue of refugees, but on the Palestinian Authority properly and effectively to control terrorism and on all the surrounding Arab states to recognise the state of Israel and not to support terrorism themselves. The answer to the terrible issue of the middle east is for us to continue to apply pressure to all sides to achieve an effective negotiated settlement.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): The Foreign Secretary has just said that the Government urge Israel to be consistent with international law. How many Palestinians have been killed since September 2000 by
Israel's policy of extra-judicial assassination? Do the Government believe that that policy is consistent with international law?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact number, but I am certainly happy to write to him about that. As to whether that is consistent with international law—no, and we have made our view very clear to the Government of Israel.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |