| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Chris Bryant : That is a good idea.
John Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend.
If we were to do all that, it would not affect voter turnout one iota. That is not what affects people's voting intentions and patterns. Two factors among many have affected voter turnout, causing it to drop through the floor in the past 20 years, particularly at general elections. I get the impression that people have a feeling that they no longer have the power to shape their own destiny. There is an inaccurate but widespread feeling that they no longer have the power to shape the future. That is part of a process that has led to the alienation of the democratic process from the voters. Without any shadow of a doubt, one key factor in that is the European Union's role, and supporters of the euro and the European constitution, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), have to face up to that.
The idea that power will not leach away to Brussels if we adopt the euro and sign up to the European constitution is nonsensical. The argument is whether we agree to power being handed over to undemocratic institutions. The reason why I oppose the euro and everything that goes with it, such as the growth and
27 May 2004 : Column 1775
stability pact, is that it is about taking power from democratic, elected institutions and handing it over to institutions that are unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic. We have no control over those institutions.
Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend will be surprised to know that I do not think that he is quite right. What makes people wonder whether our parliamentary system is right is when five votes in this Chamber provide enormous majorities in favour of a complete ban on fox hunting while the Chamber at the other end of the Corridor fails to go through the proper processes, or actively obstructs the processes, and overturns that decision. In those circumstances people think, "Hang on; who's in charge?"
John Cryer: That is a fair comment, which is surprising because I thought that I was going to get a load of drivel about the European Union. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that.
On my rather more important point, if we enter the euro, we transfer power over interest rates to an unelected group of people who sit around in a boardroom in Frankfurt. If we go further down that path, we will have to hand over some of our power to set the rate of taxation. That would be inevitable for two reasons. First, a common currency cannot exist, and has never existed, without a central tax-gathering mechanism. Secondly, it is necessary to have the economic clout that goes with a single currency. That was highlighted by the MacDougall report in 1974, which predicted everything that is happening, such as cuts in regional funding. In addition, the Maastricht treaty, the basis for the single currency, makes it clear that the European Central Bank will have power over taxation.
If we go down that path, in 10 or 15 years time—perhaps longer—all parties, whether Labour, Conservative or the Liberal Democrats, will be in the position of saying to people, "We want your vote not because we can change things fundamentally, because we can't; we've handed over all the power to Brussels and the European Central Bank. We can't do anything about the public spending crisis or the economic crisis because we can only fiddle about at the margins." People's reaction to that will be, "Well, stuff the mainstream. We'll move to the fringes—the British National party and the extremists." That will be the consequence of going down the path for which many argue.
I will always resist that. I am not a nationalist or a flag-waving little Englander, but I oppose the euro and the constitution because we must keep decision-making powers in democratic hands and make decisions for ourselves.
4.7 pm
Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise several issues that concern my constituents.
I have received a large postbag on Iraq. I voted against going to war. However, since Britain and America took part in the invasion, we have a legal and moral responsibility to keep the peace and maintain law
27 May 2004 : Column 1776
and order until we hand over power to an elected Iraqi Government. We must also assist in Iraq's reconstruction.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State for Defence say in his statement that the extra troops for the British-controlled zone will not be sent to the American-controlled area. If British commanders on the ground say, as they have done, that extra troops are needed to carry out our existing legal obligations in our sector, the Government should accede to the request, as they have done, and send more troops. However, I should not like British troops to be under the control of American commanders and used to further the American strategy in the American zone because their strategy is totally wrong. It is far too heavy-handed and therefore counterproductive.
I am also worried about the apparent contradiction between the views of the British and American Governments on the situation after 30 June. Our Government's position appears to be that the final political control of coalition forces after the power transfer will rest with the new Iraqi Government. The American Government seem to take a different view, however. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said that US forces will only take account of what the Iraqi Government say at a political level.
The anomaly between the British and American views on the control of coalition forces after the handover has to be cleared up. If we have British and American forces operating under different conditions that could be a recipe for disaster, and the practical consequences on the ground could lead to a great many operational difficulties.
I come now to Europe. Having voted twice in the Division Lobbies in favour of a referendum on the proposed European constitution, and having been on the losing side on both occasions, I was delighted by the Government's U-turn and to hear that, after all, there will be a referendum. That is, of course, provided that agreement is reached on the constitution and that it is not derailed by other countries voting no before we have the referendum in Britain. I believe that a constitution is necessary to enable a Europe of 26 countries to function, but it is important that it is endorsed by the British people in a referendum. However, I would like to see a greater commitment to subsidiarity in the constitution. Europe, while needing a constitution, is certainly far too centralised, which is why people in Britain are turning more and more against it, and there is a risk that the referendum will be lost. I hope that the final draft of the constitution will contain a greater commitment to subsidiarity.
I want to refer to areas where I believe that subsidiarity is important. The first is fishing, an industry of great importance in my constituency. It is clear that the European common fisheries policy has failed, but we need such a policy because fish swim across the boundaries of countries' territorial waters. It would clearly be ridiculous if, as soon as fish swam outside the territorial waters of a country with a policy of conservation, they swam into those of a country with a policy of scooping up everything in sight—the first
27 May 2004 : Column 1777
country's conservation policy would be pointless. We need a common fisheries policy, but not one that is run by national Governments.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): Why is the hon. Gentleman against the United Kingdom asserting control over its own fisheries up to a 200-mile limit or, where there are nearby EU states, up to the median line? Is it not the case that Norway and Iceland have conserved their fish stocks exceedingly well, and that has been to the benefit of all concerned in the north-west Atlantic?
Mr. Reid: I simply say that there is little point in one country having control up to the median line if the country on the other side of the line has a totally different policy. Fish swim the seas; they do not stick to one country's territorial waters.
John Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in 1972, when Britain applied to join what was then the common market, Norway also applied. Norway withdrew its application because the CFP was rushed through at the last minute, and Norway still has a powerful fishing fleet, whereas we have a fleet that has been decimated because of the CFP.
Mr. Reid: Norway enters into negotiations with the EU for agreements on fishing because even the Norwegians recognise that what the EU does in its own sector impacts on the Norwegian sector.
Bob Spink: Is it not a fact that while conservation of fish under Norway's national control has been pretty good, conservation of fish under the CFP has been absolutely disastrous? Would it not be better to level up by taking our own national control, rather than staying levelled down under the CFP?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |