Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
PETER HAIN
MP AND MR
KIM DARROCH
CMG
TUESDAY 1 APRIL 2003
Chairman
1. Secretary of State, welcome, as usual, in
your very different guises, to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Today you have with you Mr Kim Darroch, the Director, European
Union, at the Foreign Office, and you, as our Government Representative
on the Convention on the Future of Europe, will be able to help
the Committee both in respect of the Convention and then the way
that prepares for the Inter-Governmental Conference in 2004. I
begin in this way, Secretary of State. You and your colleagues
in the Convention are involved in a major undertaking, perhaps
not as grand as the Philadelphia Convention in the United States
but, nevertheless, a very important undertaking. Now some countries
are bound by their constitutions to hold referenda in issues of
this magnitude, I believe Denmark and the Republic of Ireland
fall into this category; others have said that they will choose
to do so, and I think France and Spain fall into that category,
because the Convention and that which follows will alter the rules
of the game, if you wish. What is the position of the United Kingdom
Government, HMG, in respect of a referendum on the results of
the Convention?
(Mr Hain) We do not intend to call a
referendum, any more than one was called on the Maastricht Treaty,
which I think was arguably far, far more wide-reaching and deep
in its impact than this one is likely to be, which after all is
likely to be a tidying-up exercise, in terms of a new constitutional
treaty which clarifies and simplifies a lot of the existing treaty
text, and some additional, new extensions. But, I think, to be
consistent with past practice, if we were to call a referendum
on this outcome, we would have needed to call one at least on
Maastricht, which the previous Government did not do, and perhaps
on other outcomes of inter-governmental conferences.
2. You do not think there is a difference with
Maastricht, in that Maastricht was an important treaty, which
was considered by the House following its normal treaty-making
consideration, but in this case a constitution will emerge, the
rules of the game will be altered; absolutely, fundamentally important?
(Mr Hain) It is fundamentally important, but I do
not accept that the rules of the game will have been changed to
the extent that a referendum would be triggered automatically,
in a way that was not the case, and has not been the case, for
previous treaties. If you look at the drafts that have been produced
so far, yes, there is some tweaking, some additional measures,
to keep pace with events in the new draft Constitution, but also,
to a very large extent, it is bringing together in one, we hope,
simple, though we will have to see, constitution the many thousands
of words in the different treaties that have been assembled up
to now. So we see it as a consolidation, with some modifications
and some changes, of where we have been for many decades.
3. So your assumption is that, at the end of
the day, this will be no more than what you call a consolidation,
a tidying process, and have no substantial constitutional significance?
(Mr Hain) I am not saying it has got no substantial
constitutional significance, of course it will have, but, by comparison
with other treaties, as they have developed and amended the ones
that have gone before them over the last decades, this one I think
should be seen in that context, not as some new and absolutely
dramatic or revolutionary departure from where we have been.
4. And that is the final say of the Government
in respect of a referendum?
(Mr Hain) It is; this Government, certainly.
5. Let us move on then to the Convention which
will report, whenever, in June, July, or even September, of this
year, followed by the Inter-Governmental Conference next year;
that will lead not only to a treaty but to a constitution. What
is your view as to how that constitution will be amended?
(Mr Hain) First of all, if I could just go over the
procedure; we hope, and it is planned, that the Convention will
end in June, a report made to a special European Council on 30
June, that is a proposal now under active consideration, and I
think there is a wide consensus for it.
6. And we are on track for that?
(Mr Hain) We are on track for that, and then an Inter-Governmental
Conference will follow, and obviously a final constitutional treaty
then will be subject to ratification.
7. And what is the amendment process which you
envisage for that treaty, for the constitution?
(Mr Hain) Are you saying, once it has been agreed
and ratified then how can it be amended subsequently?
8. Yes.
(Mr Hain) That has not been finally negotiated or
decided, but I guess you would need a similar process, at least
in terms of an IGC.
9. But already there is a debate about how the
new constitution should be amended. I understand, for example,
that the European Parliament—surprise, surprise—are
saying that they should be responsible for amendments. Surely
the Government has some view about the amendment process?
(Mr Hain) The European Parliament comes up with all
sorts of dodgy ideas from time to time, and if this is one of
them, well, so be it.
10. Well, how do we respond to that dodgy idea?
(Mr Hain) With the appropriate response to all dodgy
ideas, I think, Chairman.
11. Are you saying that the Government has not
considered this matter?
(Mr Hain) As I say, there has been no serious focus
in the Convention so far on the amendment procedure, it has been
aired; but for something as important as a Constitutional Treaty,
after all, this new constitution should be designed, and certainly
the intention is for it to last for a considerable time, so we
do not have this constant process of a permanent constitutional
revolution in Europe, we have a settled constitution.
12. But every constitution has a process of
amendment, and that process of amendment is normally contained
in the constitution itself, as in the US Constitution and that
of any other country; so surely there will come a time very shortly
when this will be discussed?
(Mr Hain) As I indicated earlier, there would have
to be another Inter-Governmental Conference. There has been no
proposal that I have seen of any weight come to suggest otherwise;
and, of course, ratification, as well, of any outcome.
Mr Hamilton
13. Secretary of State, the Laeken Declaration
did not specify that the Convention should produce a draft Constitutional
Treaty but a document that should provide a starting-point instead
for discussions at the IGC. Would you have preferred that the
Convention produced simply a series of points for discussion,
rather than a draft treaty?
(Mr Hain) No. I think, just from my own personal point
of view, having spent every year of my life there, and a fair
number of pretty heavy lifting weeks to come—
Chairman
14. You make it sound like a prison sentence?
(Mr Hain) Well, I would not say that. But I would
hope that it produces an outcome that is, if not an agreed position,
a completely agreed position, that can go into an IGC, commanding
such support that it could expect to go through without radical
change, then as close to that as possible. No, I think, the way
the Convention is developed and the attempts that we have all
made to develop a consensus around the key and the most difficult
issues, we are within sight of getting a new political architecture
which has got a broad consensus. But we will have to see, there
are very many sticky, difficult issues for us, also for many other
countries, and it remains to be seen whether we can achieve a
consensus on that. If we cannot achieve a consensus on that, which
is the aim, then we may well be into options, in which case it
will be for the IGC to resolve in the traditional fashion.
Mr Hamilton
15. I was going to come on to that, because,
as I understand it, with 16 Articles now being published of the
draft treaty, I think it is 16 that have now been published, there
are, what, over 1,200 amendments to those first 16 Articles alone,
do you think really it will be possible to achieve a consensus,
given the number of amendments that already have been put in?
(Mr Hain) We have put in ten times the number of amendments
as anybody else.
16. That begs the question then, does it not?
(Mr Hain) I do not know whether that is a badge of
honour or not, but it remains to be seen. But I think, on some
of the key issues, there is quite a lot of consensus; on some
of the others, I think people are striking negotiating poses and,
in the case of some components of the Convention, European Parliamentarians,
amongst others, maximalist positions that they know Governments,
in the Convention and ultimately in the IGC, simply are not going
to accept.
17. But, Secretary of State, the fact that we
have submitted so many more amendments than other countries, does
not that mean that we are losing the arguments?
(Mr Hain) No.
18. Does not that mean that this is not reflecting
our interests?
(Mr Hain) No, on the contrary. It means, perhaps,
with all due respect to our colleagues, that we take these things
very seriously; and I have serving me not just a team of Foreign
Office officials, experts all of them, but also an across-Whitehall
team of officials and Government lawyers, and we are taking this
extremely seriously, because we know that the outcome will have
legal force. And often I find the debates in the Convention, from
some quarters, people often are putting forward almost, as it
were, idealistic policy positions, that they do not consider the
consequences of carrying into legal text; that is why we are being
very, very serious about it. And I do not think that, as it were,
the ratio of amendments that we have submitted, or the total of
amendments submitted by anybody else, indicates necessarily that
we will not get a consensus.
19. But you said that you do not favour permanent
revolution, as it were, if I can use that expression, and yet
you said also that it will have a legal force once agreed. Now
surely it will be very difficult to unpick things that we do not
agree with which fundamentally are opposed to what the British
Government wants to see once we have achieved that status of the
legal framework?
(Mr Hain) We have a legal framework now, which has
involved very difficult negotiations, the Nice Treaty, for example,
many days, and extra shirts had to be provided and other clothing
in order to get through the whole process, so I am not saying
this is going to be easy. But we will not agree to anything which
is against our national interest, and so we are quite confident
about the whole process. There are going to be some very, very
difficult issues to resolve in the end game, and it depends on
our negotiating skill and our political determination as to whether
we can get those where we want them, or where we have to end up.
|
