| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: Ah, “Some”, he says. This is what the leader of the German Conservative party said a few days ago:
- “Without the European constitution, Europe doesn't have a future”,
- “We strongly support the draft European Constitution”.
We now know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would renegotiate the treaty without the support of any other Government in the EU, despite the fact that he would need the agreement of every other Government to make that stick. What would he do? He would either have associate membership, as urged on him by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who represented the Conservative party on the Convention, or he would have to back down and we would face humiliation. Let no one forget that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Home Secretary, and when there was the great non-co-operation over BSE do we remember that? he made a British proposal in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, but then had to go along to the Council and veto it on the basis that he was not co-operating. That is what the Opposition would reduce our country to.
We will protect our essential national interests and no positions will be taken that are inconsistent with that. However, our national interest also means accepting that a Europe of 25 must work more effectively. That position between constructive engagement and renegotiation of our essential membership of the European Union is the dividing line between the two political parties. That is a debate in the country and in the House to which we look forward with enthusiasm.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West) (LD): On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and the underlying sense of regained political momentum that underpins it at a European level. That is particularly encouraging after the recent stalls and setbacks, both those of a political nature and those arising from the dreadful terrorist atrocities in Spain.
On Libya, we support the Prime Minister and the Government in their initiative. The House will understand that those of us who view such matters from
a Scottish perspective will never allow the dreadful memories and images of Lockerbie to fade. It was significant last week that, despite the understandably divided opinions among those who were most directly affected by that dreadful event, a degree of welcome and understanding was none the less expressed about the need to establish dialogue. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not good enough to will the ends from the sidelines, only to carp and criticise about the means?In his discussions with Gaddafi, did the Prime Minister touch on the vexed issue of possible weaponry sales to Libya? Was any level of detail entered into in those discussions concerning, for example, the types of systems involved and the use to which they might be put?
On terrorism generally, a very broad welcome must be given to the declaration on combating terrorism and, as he is a former leader of the European Liberals, to the appointment of our friend Gijs de Vries as the first terrorism co-ordinator. We wish him every success. The Prime Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats, both in Brussels and here in Westminster, supported the European arrest warrant at the time of its introduction not all did so, it must be remembered but I hope that he recognises that it is important to continue to stress that that measure and several others have been fast-tracked since the atrocious events of 11 September. Will he bear in mind throughout the need to keep a judicious balance between the safety of European citizens and their civil liberties?
In broad terms, EU co-operation on the crackdown on financing terrorism and on shared intelligence and existing legal instruments deserves support at that level, but at this level, in Westminster, we do not feel that the rushed responses of the Home Secretary limiting the right to trial and appeal, limiting access to evidence and lowering the burden of proof deserve support. That will remain our position.
Finally, on the fresh impetus that has now been given post Convention to the work on the constitution, we have always argued that a constitution is necessary and welcome because it will define and make clear the limits of European Union power. Indeed, as somebody who is unequivocally pro-European, I have always been puzzled about why somebody of a more Eurosceptical disposition a perfectly honourable view to take is not more in favour of a defined constitution that allows us to know the limits and legitimacy of the European operation and the transparency and accountability of those limits, and builds in an appeal process for the individual citizen to follow when they feel that the European Union, through whichever of its component institutions, is overstepping the mark.
The constitution is necessary to help to build in stability, not least after enlargement. There has been a bit of an ongoing cultural revolution about Europe, which never seems to end, and a period of stability would be welcome. The Government's red lines are welcome, and we continue to endorse them, as the Prime Minister knows. Looking back to the experience on Maastricht on behalf of our party, I spoke and voted in favour of a referendum at the time, and noted those who did not find the idea of a referendum at all attractive or favourable surely, if the new revised constitution that emerges from the further discussions
that are to take place involves constitutional implications, as the present one does, a referendum would be the right way to go.I think that the Prime Minister would agree that consistency is a good thing in these matters. Will he assure us that, whether on Libya or the need for a referendum on the eventual constitution, all of us as party leaders should avoid the trap of saying one thing in one place, and another thing in another?
The Prime Minister: First, in respect of Libya, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement of support, for which I am grateful. In respect of anything to do with weapons sales or military and defence co-operation, as I said last week, I have appointed General Searby to handle these issues for us. Obviously, this has to proceed in a very careful way, and we are at the beginning of the process.
It may be worth pointing out to the House that part of the reason why I felt that it was possible to go to Libya last week and, in a sense, make a formal statement of support for the process is what Libya has done between its decision in December and now. It has taken measures that augur extremely well for the future they must be maintained, but none the less they are specific for example, providing unrestricted access to facilities and giving full answers to the questions that have been posed. The Libyans have actually volunteered information that has allowed us to know the proper extent of their chemical and nuclear weapons programmes; they have signed the additional protocol to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, which allows intensive, even intrusive, inspections; they have ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty; they have deposited the instrument of ratification for the chemical weapons convention; they have made a full declaration to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of their production of chemical weapons; and they have facilitated the removal from Libya of highly sensitive documentation and literally tonnes of WMD-related equipment. As a result of those changes, we felt that going to Libya was the right thing to do.
In respect of the European issues, the right hon. Gentleman and I will probably disagree about terrorism and legal powers. The arrest warrant is a necessary part of ensuring that we make Europe work more effectively. Of course, it is right to say that the constitutional treaty makes it expressly clear for the first time that the only competencies that the European Union will have are those that are conferred on it specifically by member states, which is an important development and change.
The reason why I disagree so strongly with the Conservative party about a full-time chairman of the European Council a proposition, incidentally, opposed by the federalists in Europe is that it gives the Council an opportunity to draw up a coherent agenda, which a rotating six-month presidency simply will not do. A full-time chairman is an important measure for efficiency in a European Union of 25.
Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and indeed his actions, particularly with regard to Libya.
Amid the hysteria of some sections of the press and of the Leader of the Opposition, does he welcome the editorial in Saturday's Financial Times, which describes the draft treaty as
- “giving clearer decision-making procedures; a clarification of who does what in the EU; and a greater involvement for national Parliaments”,
- “that it therefore presents the EU as it is . . . and not as the superstate' of eurosceptic myth”?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |