You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Debate
Previous SectionIndexHome Page

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt this excellent debate, but I wish to apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), to you and to the House for not being in my place for his ten-minute Bill a few moments ago. It was a complete oversight on my part and I apologise for the discourtesy that was shown to the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is very gracious of the Minister to return to the House to make that apology, which does not always happen. I accept his apology entirely, and I hope that he will read my speech and become a champion for puffins and sea squirts.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I call Mr. Ancram.

1.20 pm

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): Before that dignified apology by the Under-Secretary, the House was being entertained by one of the Foreign Secretary's famous rants. Interestingly, he spoke for 40 minutes
 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 794
 
before he came on to what his party stands for in Europe. He spent most of the rest of the time attacking what he said my party stands for. I have learned one thing about the Foreign Secretary, and it is that when he rants like that it is a sign of uncertainty.

Hon. Members will recall a debate earlier this year when I called for a referendum on the European constitution. In reply, we heard a remarkable rant from the Foreign Secretary, in which he told us how disgraceful an idea it was even to suggest a referendum on such an issue. He gave me all the reasons why a referendum would be wrong and then, 10 days later and apparently at his direction, the Government changed their mind. I am not sure what we should read into his rant today. Perhaps our wish will come true and the Government will go to Brussels and say no to the constitution.

These biannual debates on European affairs, which occur shortly before the meetings of the Heads of Government in the European Council, are traditionally useful occasions when Members of Parliament, as elected representatives of the British people, can express our views on the position that the Prime Minister should take at the summit. Rarely can there have been a debate as relevant and timely as today's. On the day before the Prime Minister flies to Brussels to finalise agreement on the European constitution and three days after the results of the European Parliament election results were declared, there can never have been a clearer message for him to carry to the Council: the British people do not want this constitution.

A year ago, when the full impact of the draft constitutions became apparent, it was publicly argued that if people did not like what they were offered, they could vote against the Government in the European elections this year. The elections, it was argued, would more or less coincide with the end of the process on the constitution, and we were given to understand that the Government would be

Those are not my words, but those of the Leader of the House on the "Today" programme on 27 May last year. Well, the people have decided.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the votes of the Scottish people as an endorsement—he claimed—of his position on fishing. Interestingly, he did not talk about the national results. In last week's election, more than 50 per cent. of people voted for parties opposed to the constitution. If the Prime Minister presses ahead with agreeing the constitution, he will do so in the face of the democratically expressed will of the British people. If he does so, he cannot claim that he is representing the British people. That vote has rendered invalid his mandate to agree the constitution, if he ever had one. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes his usual protestations, but my understanding is that one has a mandate to do something that was in one's manifesto. Perhaps he could show me where the Labour manifesto for 2001 makes any mention of the introduction of a European constitution. After that vote, the Prime Minister has no
 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 795
 
moral authority to agree the constitution. He should heed the will of the British people and go to Brussels and say no. If he does, we for our part would welcome it.

Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab): Most of the British people are not aware of the detail of the constitution, so I do not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say that they are against it. I think that they would welcome greater co-operation on measures to tackle illegal immigration and asylum, and the enhanced power of the nation state that the constitution contains. The Conservatives have got this all wrong.

Mr. Ancram: We do not need a constitution to do any of the things that the hon. Lady mentions. She appears to scorn the advice given by the Leader of the House, who saw the elections as a chance for the British people to pronounce on the constitution. The British people took up that invitation and they have clearly spoken.

I fear that the Prime Minister will not return from Brussels having said no to the constitution. He will tell us proudly about his red lines, which are part of a carefully choreographed battle for British interests that have already been conceded by his European colleagues, but which must appear to be fought and won in the battle of spin to allow him to claim victory. It will be a hollow and deceptive victory, because it will not deal with the real dangers to British interests that the constitution poses.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Prime Minister could veto every aspect of the constitutional treaty that he did not like, and he could go further and say that he would also veto enhanced co-operation, which France and Germany want, unless they give us our fish back? Would that not be a sensible approach in the negotiations?

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend sets out an important fact ignored by the Government, which is that negotiations are about such arguments—getting what one wants, sometimes in return for something that someone else wants. But this Government do not negotiate. They never argue Britain's corner. Indeed, from what they have said recently, they appear to believe that negotiation means saying to colleagues, "We want this, but if you don't want to give it to us, we will not press you any further."

In the next two days, we shall hear a lot about the so-called red lines. It has already started, with talk in today's newspapers of keeping national vetoes for treaty change, tax, social security, defence, criminal procedure and, as a general rule, foreign policy. We were told that there was no need for a European public prosecutor. I thought that the Foreign Secretary might tell us today what was happening on that, but he was too busy talking about us. Making the charter of fundamental rights anything other than a political declaration was also to
 
16 Jun 2004 : Column 796
 
be a red line. The Government will undoubtedly claim that if those points are met, the constitution will be acceptable.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the European public prosecutor, but we have a veto over whether it even happens.

Mr. Ancram: I presume that the Foreign Secretary hopes to be able to tell the House when he returns that he has achieved all his red lines. However, he may remember that he told us in December that they had already been achieved.

Admittedly, if the red lines were not met, the constitution would be even worse. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, in reality the red lines are red herrings—a last-ditch and somewhat desperate distraction from the fact that, even in the Government's own terms, the current text is very different from the one they originally aimed for.

During the course of the Convention on the Future of Europe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) will recall, the Government tabled 275 amendments to the text of the constitution. Only 10 were accepted into the final text. To put it in football parlance, the score to date is Giscard 265, British Government 10! So what happened to the other 265 important amendments? Let us look at just a few. Last year, the Leader of the House tried to strike out the article giving the constitution legal primacy. So why is that not still a red line?

On the question of an EU Foreign Minister, the Leader of the House wrote:

What an extraordinary phrase. The Leader of the House continued:

So why is it no longer a red line? Is it because the Government are now hell-bent on creating an EU diplomatic service, with its own embassies and its own ambassadors working to its own Foreign Minister?

The Government wanted to rewrite completely the article on asylum. They described it as "a fundamentally important amendment". They failed. So why is that no longer a red line?

Next Section IndexHome Page