| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.6 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): Today's debate is more significant than the regular European tour d'horizons that we have in the House every six months— we can use foreign language on this side of the House, too. After the Foreign Secretary's speech today, we shall have to reach some agreement on the pronunciation of names, or we shall find ourselves talking about our trips to "Paree" and "Firenze" and meeting President Putin in "Moskva". I am sure that we do not want to get into that. I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that, where an English pronunciation of a place name is available, we should use it.
The summit in Thessalonica is no run-of-the-mill summit. It will receive, and begin the discussions on, the recommendations of the Giscard d'Estaing Convention.
I listened with growing amazement and disbelief to the Foreign Secretary. I cannot understand whom he is trying to kid. He is too intelligent to take seriously the false analysis of the outcome of the Convention that he keeps repeating. What he has sought to do once again is to create a false debate. The only reason that I can see for that is fear of the real debate. We have heard him claim once again that the outcome of the Convention does not amount to very much—not enough to get hot under the collar about, and certainly not enough to justify a referendum.
The Foreign Secretary knows that that is arrant nonsense. I make no accusation of dishonesty against him; in many ways, he personifies sincerity. We can all recall the sincerity with which he presented the dodgy dossier to the world in February, and he was praised by Secretary Colin Powell. Today we have seen him present, with equally wide-eyed sincerity, what I believe will become known as the dodgy debate.
The Convention set out to achieve a new status and direction for the EU, and it has achieved that. I cannot understand why the Government are so keen to deny that fact. It is not as if they believe, at the end of the day, that they can get away with it. For a start, their colleagues in Europe will not let them.
On 21 May, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
- "No one should get obsessed about the fact that it will be called a constitution."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1030.]
- "Anyone in Britain who claims the constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who don't want to see a bigger role for Europe. The constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives . . . Eventually the union will . . . become an institution and organisation in its own right."
On 11 June, the Foreign Secretary told us:
- "What the Convention is proposing . . . will not alter the fundamental constitutional balance between the European Union's institutions and the member nation states."—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 712.]
- "What is at stake is so new and big that it is right to hold a referendum".
- "This is the most important text since the Treaty of Rome in 1957."
- "We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the word historic."
- "It is the most important treaty since the formation of the European economic community."
I know whom the British people believe on this, and it is not the Government. To be fair to the Government, at least the Chancellor knows the score. The Treasury's single currency assessments, published last week, on page 220, state:
- "Many of the issues being considered by the European Convention could have far reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies whether they are part of the euro area or not."
Why is the Foreign Secretary so reticent? The Prime Minister has frequently called for the building of a European superpower—and that is not my word, but the word that he uses. That is what the proposed constitution lying on the table in Thessalonica is, at the very least, proposing. The truth is that the draft constitution constitutes a step change away from the Europe of nations to a political entity in its own right.
Mr. Straw: I have listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman, whose speech has obviously been drafted by the Leader of the Opposition's speechwriter. He has given several quotations, but if he wants more
authoritative observations from people who are keen federalists, I offer him the following. Romano Prodi said that the text
- "lacks vision and ambition. It is in some respects a step backwards"—
Mr. Bercow: He is a federalist.
Mr. Straw: I know, but he is saying the Convention is a step backwards. That is exactly my point. He is indeed a federalist, but he sees it as a step backwards, not forwards. The even more extreme federalist, Giuliano Amato, who has been vice-president of the Convention, said—according to The Daily Telegraph on 24 May—when he saw the texts:
- "I want to kill myself."
- "The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."
We must look at the proposals as a whole. The constitution creates constitutional primacy, a legal personality, a president, a foreign secretary, fundamental rights—including the right to strike—that will be legally enforceable at European level, a common foreign and security policy, plans for a European army, the explicit primacy of European law, an increasing role in criminal law, control over immigration and asylum, expanded powers in transport and energy, and a common currency. That is no tidying-up exercise. It is at worst a collecting of pieces to construct them into something new and at best the beginning of the fulfilment of the dream of those who have always seen the European Union as the route to a politically united Europe.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I have some sympathy with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but he overstates his case when he represents an agenda presented by individuals, or even countries. He must understand that that is not how the constitutional power of the European Union has increased over the past 40 years. It happens when the Foreign Ministers and Heads of State start negotiating and horse-trading at the intergovernmental conferences. Some say, "We don't want this," and others say, "Well, we don't want that." In the end, they all give a bit. It is through that process of accretion that constitutional change takes place and the power of the European institutions increases.
Mr. Ancram: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Our experience is that the change happens with a ratchet effect, and power rarely passes the other way. What
concerns me—and it is why I said earlier that we have moved into a new phase—is that the construction of the constitution, which calls itself a constitution and has all the features of one, is now no longer in the hands of the Convention but in those of the IGC. That is where the bartering and the arguments will begin.I am concerned that the Government have already decided the outcome, because they have said firmly that they will not allow a referendum, whatever comes out of the IGC.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that a ratchet effect is at work. I put it to him that there is a close and compelling analogy between the process of European integration and the process of seduction, and the consequence in both cases is the same.
Mr. Ancram: I need to give a little thought to the deeper meaning of those remarks before I venture a reply. However, we agree that we need to be aware of the dynamic of the situation. That is the reality that our partners in Europe understand, and I do not know why the Government do not have the honesty to admit it. Let us consider the totality of what is proposed. If that is not a fundamental change, I do not know what is. The saying goes that if you see an elephant on your doorstep, you should recognise that fact before you get trampled on. This constitution is an elephant and its capacity to trample on us is growing all the time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |