Examination of Witnesses(Questions 40-47)
WEDNESDAY 18 DECEMBER 2002
MR DENIS
MACSHANE
MP, MR PAUL
JOHNSTON AND
MR ALEX
ELLIS
Mr Connarty
40. Moving to a topic that seems to be close
to the heart and mind of our own Prime Minister, the future Presidency
of the EU, what conclusions did the Presidency have to draw in
Copenhagen about where we might go on that front in getting a
change in the role of the Presidency and possibly even a formal
President?
(Mr MacShane) May I begin by saying that the British
government does not refer to the need for a President of the European
Council of Ministers. We think there should be a chair, a chairman,
a chairperson, and I put all three terms in front of the Committee.
We think that that is necessary to maintain continuity from European
Council to European Council because with 25 members the idea that
every 12 or 13 years one country will have the Presidency of the
Council on the six-monthly rotation basis of today, frankly, is
not workable. There are other ideas to do with teams of countries
coming together to have a slightly longer term Presidency. Our
thinking is that this man or woman would be a chair who would
be there for a certain time period, who would work very closely
with the President of the European Commission and the President
of the European Parliament because we want both the Commission
and Parliament to come out stronger from the current Convention
discussions and the Inter-Governmental Conference that will then
take place. We see him as someone who will go from country to
country talking about Europe in a positive way but, above all,
explaining the work of the Council to citizens of Europe, someone
who can participate in international affairs to represent the
Council in a permanent way in relationship to Russia, China, Latin
America, Africa and so on. We see this as a person who can add
very considerable value, probably someone who can speak two or
three languages, my own view is probably someone from a smaller
country rather than one of the big countries. What the Copenhagen
Council agreed was to put forward a paper to the Convention for
consideration. It was not discussed because of time constraints
but I think it makes sense. It sets out three possible models
for reform: to maintain the current rotating Presidency of the
Council, which, as I say, will leave each Member State with a
bash at the Presidency every 12 and a half or 13 years. The second
model is to have what is called an Institutional Presidency, the
Council as a co-ordinating chain with a rotating or elected chairmanship
for some Council activities and a team Presidency so you put together
two or three countries but still retain a six-month rotation.
The Council also agreed to suggest to the Convention that one
needed to strengthen the role of the high representative charged
with common foreign and security policy but, of course, there
could be some potential, as I said, for a new chair of the European
Council if that is decided. In essence these are matters for the
Convention. There are a lot of ideas on the table, a lot of divisions
between different Member States, and it is something I will certainly
pay attention to because having seen a couple of these Council
meetings I do not see how they can function without some continuity.
I think that continuity would best be provided by an elected chair
who had the authority, experience and support of the Council who
could add very considerable value to the general work of making
the European Union function effectively.
Mr Cash
41. Moving on to the Convention on the Future
of Europe, Mr MacShane, I am sure you would agree with me that
if an elephant comes and parks itself in your drawing room it
is likely that you would notice it. On that basis, would you not
agree that the proposals for a European constitution are now so
firmly embedded in the discussions that are going on, the British
government having conceded the issue in principle and all of the
other participants with a small minority of people, who probably
have more in common with the populations of Europe as a whole,
being completely out-numbered, that against that background it
is absolutely essential, in my opinion, to say no to a European
constitution altogether, but in the light of the propensity of
all of other Member States who are representatives at this conference,
plus also the commitment of the United Kingdom government, to
make it absolutely certain that there is a referendum on these
constitutional proposals before the Inter-Governmental Conference
itself? Why is it that we hear that the United Kingdom government
is against any such referendum and what was the main message in
the report from Mr Giscard d'Estaing on progress in the Convention?
(Mr MacShane) I have sat in nearly every debate on
Europe in the House in the eight-odd years that I have been a
member and again and again from all benches and perhaps even,
if I look through the records, from you Mr Cash, I have heard
demands for clear and precise rules of how the European Union
should operate, and that of course is what a constitution would
provide. Currently new treaties are long, complicated, confusing
and overlapping so we see the need for a clear and concise constitutional
declaration which will clarify what the EU is, what it does, how
it does it, and perhaps also what it does not do in the role of
nations and regional authorities within that, so I think that
would be a very positive outcome from a Convention or Inter-Governmental
Conference, although you are quite right it is not the government's
view that we should have a referendum either on the final outcome
of the Convention or once the Convention's work is taken up by
the Inter-Governmental Conference on its outcome. Our position
is that it will be a Treaty change ratified after strenuous public
debate covering all the details in the House of Commons. The work
of the Convention so far has been good. I think there has been
very considerable British input. I pay tribute to my predecessor
Peter Hain and I express my delight that he has kept that job
because it frees me up to discuss this in the capitals of Europe
and indeed in the provinces of our own country. Mr Giscard d'Estaing
has put up some ideas, Mr Prodi has put up some ideas, Mr Fischler
has put up some ideas from Germany, everybody is putting up ideas
for the Convention to discuss and I look forward to the next six
months or so of its work.
42. I am sure you would agree with me that one
of the more obvious examples of the rule that you expressed, which
is that we do not have referendums in this country, is of course
the referendum which the government is committed to on the single
currency which of course ultimately would be rolled into the whole
of this constitutional arrangement. It would be disingenuous,
Mr MacShane, I am sure you would agree to suppose that, for example,
incorporating the idea of a legal personality into the European
Union and a whole range of seminal questions which I do not think
we have got time to go into today—
(Mr MacShane) That is a great shame, Mr Cash!
Chairman: Do not tempt him, Minister.
Mr Cash
43. Do not tempt me and of course we have had
the opportunity to discuss these with Mr Peter Hain on a number
of occasions. The totality of this elephant I referred to is not
just a question of re-organising the wording of the Treaty, it
is not consolidation, it is actually an extension and expansion
of the arrangements which, by any standards, will have a fundamental
impact on the democracy of this country and the way in which our
system of government functions. So that is why I would dispute
your rather optimistic view that it would simply be a mechanical
operation without really making very much difference and that
in any case it would necessarily be for the good. I would disagree,
I think it would be a total disaster.
(Mr MacShane) Mr Cash, I think I am here to give evidence
rather than debate in a formal way but, as I did say, the British
tradition is that when it involves Treaty changes, which is what
the outcome of the Convention and then an Inter-Governmental Conference
would require, then it is Parliament that debates and decides
whether to ratify. Yes, we have referendums on other issues. As
you mentioned, we have referendums also in component parts of
the United Kingdom, as colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland would be well aware. I think that on the issue of a legal
personality there are advantages of this in terms of the simplicity
of the EU's international profile, but we have made clear that
this does not extend to foreign and security policies and, of
course, Member States will retain their current rights in terms
of representations on international bodies.
Chairman: Minister, we will now move on to the
Middle East Peace process. Mr Davis?
Mr Davis
44. Minister, I noticed at the meeting last
week they issued a Declaration about the Middle East and the sharply
deteriorating situation in the West Bank and Gaza, but it did
not seem to have any suggestions about what should be done to
reverse that deterioration. Do you have any idea? Is it just omitted?
(Mr MacShane) I do not think that is quite fair. What
the Declaration points out is that the EU will continue to provide
the budgetary support for the Palestinian Authority. Obviously
we reaffirmed our condemnation of suicide bombings and reaffirmed
the appeal to Israel to stop the excessive use of force and to
reverse its settlement policy and immediately freeze all settlement
activity. We are part of the so-called Quartet of partners and
we want to work on a road map for the establishment of a Palestinian
state. We also this week have seen the announcement of the Prime
Minister of the conference he is organising and Britain will host
early next year, with Israeli elections to go through. I think
that while we would all wish some decisive step that would, as
it were, bring peace to the Middle East, the European Union, as
expressed in its Declaration in Copenhagen, is taking very, very
seriously its responsibilities in that part of the world.
45. You referred to this meeting on Friday of
the United Nations, the United States, Russia and the European
Union but it is made quite clear in the Declaration that the purpose
of that meeting is to prepare what in the jargon is called a "road
map" for the establishment of the Palestinian state by the
year 2005. What is the relevance of that, very welcome though
it is, to a sharply deteriorating humanitarian situation now?
(Mr MacShane) I think the relevance is that those
elements in the Middle East, those people in the Middle East who
want support for the idea of negotiation and a peaceful way out
of the tragedy have the support of the European Union. You are
right, Mr Davis, to say that the Declaration from Copenhagen is
not going to stop suicide bombings or stop the use of excessive
force by the Israelis. Similar declarations from the United States
do not produce that desired effect. I wish it were otherwise.
Mr Connarty
46. Is there any possibility that the Quartet
will actually look at the outstanding resolutions on settlements
and the main cause of the conflict which I have seen first-hand
in the four or five times I have been there, Israel appears to
behave as though the UN resolutions have never been passed, that
they have not been supported, at least in theory, by the United
Kingdom and United States, and continues to rebuild Israel by
more and more incursions into the Palestinian areas?
(Mr MacShane) Mr Connarty, you are right, I think
a strict reading of the resolutions dating from immediately after
the Six-Day War in 1967 called on all parties to, as it were,
respond without use of violence. The Israeli people face a very
real, present terrorist threat which I think in any of the countries
in the European Union faced in terms of the wanton killing of
young people in discotheques and bus stations by suicide bombers,
the internal political mood would perhaps not be as amenable to
peaceful negotiations as one might wish sitting here in the security
of the House of Commons. But, again, I say to the Committee, Chairman,
that the Copenhagen Declaration is absolutely clear. It says that
Israel should not only freeze all settlement activity but reverse
its settlement policy and that is the British government's position,
that is Europe's position, and if Israel wishes to conform with
what the European Union wants to happen that is what the Israeli
government should abide by.
Chairman
47. Minister, thank you very much. It has been
a very useful evidence session. I took a note when Mr Cash was
giving you some good advice and I am sure you will take it on
board, not to invite any elephants into your dining room! I look
forward to our next meeting with you. Thank you very much to you
and your colleagues for coming along this morning.
(Mr MacShane) Thank you, Chairman. Can I say that
this is the thirteenth event in which I have participated in the
House of Commons in the barely six weeks I have been Minister
in terms of debates, scrutiny committees and standing committees,
so when I hear that the House of Commons has little interest in
European affairs, I would say it is very difficult for me to travel
Europe because of the demands placed upon me, and I welcome that
because I want this House to be fully involved in the structure
of Europe. I have enjoyed this session and thank members for their
questions. I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a very
successful and prosperous New Year.
Chairman: I hope you were not superstitious
when you came along this morning, Minister!
|
