Previous SectionIndexHome Page

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Golf clubs have them.

Mr. Ancram: If the Foreign Secretary thinks that we are talking about a golf club with regard to the constitution, he should study it more carefully.

The constitution would create a single legal personality for Europe for the first time. A single legal personality is the hallmark of a state. For the first time, it will constitutionally assert the authority of European law over all national laws and constitutions. Totally contrary to the Government's pledged position, the constitution will incorporate the charter of fundamental rights, give that legal status and make it legally binding. Through the constitution, contrary to pledges made in Britain, the Government have agreed to a separate European military planning capability that will undermine NATO. It creates a five-year presidency and a Foreign Minister with his own diplomatic service—it is called an external action service to lessen the impact of that—that will increasingly move powers on asylum and immigration policy to the European Union. The constitution will abolish more than 30 national vetoes, and anyone who says that it is not a centralising and integrationist measure has not studied its details.

Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Just to spare me from endless sleepless nights, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear up one little query that I have had for a considerable time after listening to Conservative Members debating the constitution? I am sure that he knows that the principle of the supremacy of Community law was established in—I think—1962.

Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): 1964.

Lady Hermon: It was 1964—I thank the hon. Gentleman, who always keeps me right. The principle was established in the landmark decision on Costa v. ENEL in 1964. The principle of the supremacy of

30 Mar 2004 : Column 1491

Community law was well known to the Tory Government who took this country into Europe. This country's courts have applied and given supremacy to Community law for 30 years, so what is the big issue about it appearing in the constitution?

Mr. Ancram: The simple answer to the hon. Lady's important question is that up until now, the primacy or supremacy of European law over national laws has flowed from treaties that were agreed by nations and could be changed by nations. We are talking about the creation of a constitution from which such authority will flow down. That is a different animal from the previous situation. We emphasise the point because we are talking about a changed animal—it moves from being a Europe of nations to something much closer to being a nation of Europe.

Mr. Cash: In endorsing what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, does he accept that only a few days ago, the House of Lords European Union Committee issued a report that made it quite clear that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are wrong to state repeatedly that there will be no fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and its member states? In fact, the House of Lords Committee says that there is a new arrangement for competencies. It was completely wrong of the Foreign Secretary to continue to assert that outrageous statement in Foreign Office questions today.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has spent much time studying the technicalities, and I bow to his knowledge of them.

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: I shall give way in a moment.

We are considering whether the constitution is a fundamental change in the relationships between the EU and its member states. That was the test for a referendum set by the Prime Minister. My argument is that when all the various points that I have outlined are added together, it is clear that the relationship and the direction of power are changing. That is why we are pressing so hard for a referendum.

Mr. MacShane: It is important to have on the record that paragraph 25 of the House of Lords report states:

In other words, it underlines the very point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).

Mr. Ancram: Once again, as he so often does, the Minister for Europe has completely missed the point.

The constitution not only makes the changes that I have described, but sets out wider aspirations for the future. It does so in terms that leave little room for misunderstanding. On the economy, article I-14 states:

30 Mar 2004 : Column 1492

Let me ask the Foreign Secretary how that general aspiration will work in the long term without tax harmonisation, and is that article as it stands in the constitution acceptable to the Government?

Mr. Straw indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Having told me that there is to be no change, he will apparently be seeking change. Perhaps he will enlighten us.

Mr. Straw: The wording of articles I-11 and I-14 is unacceptable. We have proposed amendments to change the wording so that it becomes consistent with the articles in part III—69 or 70, or thereabouts—and makes it clear that it is the role of member states, not of the Union, to co-ordinate their economic policies. We made that position clear as long ago as September last year in the White Paper.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for clearing up the question whether that remains the Government's position. May I ask him another question? Article I-15, on foreign and security policy, states:

What does that mean in the long term if not a single foreign and security policy, subject—as it would be, if the constitution goes through as it is now—to the European Court of Justice? Is that acceptable to the Government?

Mr. Straw: First, the current draft makes it absolutely clear that it will not be subject to the European Court of Justice. Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to know what the words mean, he should ask himself. They are identical to those found in the Maastricht treaty, for which he voted.

Mr. Ancram: I am asking the Government, who are, as I understand it, negotiating the treaty, what their view of its meaning is. Apparently, Ministers have no view other than the one held by Opposition Front Benchers. The House has a right to know what the Government envisage will be the outturn of such articles, if they sign up to them.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I hope that he picks up the mistake that the Foreign Secretary just made. The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the European Court of Justice will not have jurisdiction over article I-15. In fact, the relevant article, III-282, makes it clear that the Court has no jurisdiction only in respect of articles I-39 and I-40. Therefore, article I-15—the solidarity clause that imposes an obligation on member states—will be justiciable in the European Court of Justice. That clearly contradicts what we have just been told by the Foreign Secretary, who ought by now to have read the draft treaty that he is about to negotiate.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The answers that I am trying to secure are coming from

30 Mar 2004 : Column 1493

my right hon. and hon. Friends, not from the Government. That goes back to what I was saying earlier. The Government do not understand what this constitution is about and what they are trying to get the UK to sign up for. This is a one-way ticket on a line to a single destination. It can be called a step change or a gateway, but it cannot be called insignificant. It shifts sovereignty away from the nation states towards the centre, and in doing so it changes the relationships. I happen to believe that that is dangerous and wrong.

We are constantly being told by those on the Government Front Bench that we are alone in our views. However, what about the peoples of Europe? How many of them are straining at the leash for this constitution? How many of them raised their voices in resentment or concern when agreement on the constitution was not reached in December? How many demonstrations have there ever been? We must remember that the whole idea of the constitutional convention was to try to bring Europe closer to the people. It is time that Governments began to listen more closely to what their people are telling them.

Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Next Section

IndexHome Page