| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
RAF Menwith Hill
18. Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): If he will make a statement on the forward plans for RAF Menwith Hill. [179376]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram):
A long-term plan is being developed by a joint UK-US team to improve some of the ageing infrastructure on the site. That may lead to the demolition of some of the older buildings and their
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1078
replacement by modern facilities that, wherever possible, will be more in keeping with the rural landscape. Base authorities are working closely with the local planning authority to agree suitable architectural standards and guidelines. There are no plans to change the base's current role and mission.
Norman Baker: The Minister will know that there is some controversy over RAF Menwith Hill. He accepts, I hope, that it is in the interests of and it is the duty of Members of Parliament to ensure that the base operates in the British national interest. Is he therefore content that, when I asked to visit the base, his predecessor told me that he would have to check with the American Administration first and came back most apologetically to tell me that the Americans would not allow me to visit an RAF base? Is it now British policy that the Americans decide whether Members of Parliament can visit RAF bases?
Mr. Ingram: I am not fully aware of all the matter related by the hon. Gentleman concerning his previous request. I would have to look into that to find out the nature of his request, why he wanted a visit, what issues he wanted to discuss, and the relevance of all that. I will look into his earlier request, but the important thing is not to whip up suspicion about what is undoubtedly an important part of our defence interests as well as those of the US. The installation is important and, as I said, there are no plans to change its role or mission as part of the current reconstruction.
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1079
European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council that took place in Brussels on 17 and 18 June. At that Council, the European Union—now of 25 nations, soon to be 28—agreed a new treaty for Europe that sets out for the first time, in one single treaty, the powers, rights and duties of the European Union. I have placed a copy of the presidency conclusions in the Libraries of both Houses. I thank the Irish presidency, under the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, for its skill in negotiating a successful conclusion.
As the Taoiseach said, the constitutional treaty makes it clear that Europe is
"not a super state; not a federal state but a group of nations".
This treaty makes it plain, again for the first time in a European treaty, that the European Union has only the competences conferred on it by member states, and it states expressly, also for the first time, that member states can withdraw from Europe should they want to.
This treaty makes clear where the European Union can and cannot act. It provides for qualified majority voting where we need it, for the single market, for reform of the common agricultural policy and for action against international crime and terrorism. It keeps unanimity for the most important decisions and, at our insistence, in particular for tax, social security, foreign policy, defence and decisions on the financing of the Union affecting the British budget contribution. It keeps our ability to opt out of measures affecting our laws on asylum and immigration, and extends that so that we cannot be obliged to co-operate on criminal law procedures where we do not want to do so. For the first time ever, it provides a power for national Parliaments to scrutinise proposals from Brussels at the draft stage and to send them back if Parliaments are not satisfied.
The treaty provides, through the route of enhanced co-operation, for a flexible Europe in which groups of countries can take action together within the framework of the European Union provided that they do not damage the interests of others. That is a flexibility within the framework of law, not the free-for-all that some have advocated.
Above all, the treaty provides for the reforms in the working of the European Union that are necessary if it is not to fall into gridlock with 25 members. It reforms the system of the six-monthly rotating presidency to provide greater continuity and coherence in a Union of 25, and replaces it with a full-time Chairman of the European Council, who will serve for up to five years. This is crucial in placing the power to set Europe's agenda in the hands of Europe's intergovernmental body.
The European Union treaty includes, in the charter of fundamental rights, the rights of the citizen under EU law. The charter expressly rules out establishing any new power or task for the European Union or any change in the powers of the European Union. In each area the rights are expressly limited to those available under existing national law and practices and under existing Union law. For example, article 28 of the charter says
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1080
that workers and employers have the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels, but only
"in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices".
In addition, the charter contains explanations for each article—making it clear, for example, that
"the . . . limits for the exercise of collective action, including strike action, come under national laws and practices, including the question of whether it may be carried out in parallel in several member states".
The treaty requires those explanations to be given due regard by the Courts.
Some have expressed concern at the references in the treaty to the primacy of European Union law.
In fact, the primacy of European Union law has existed since we joined the European Union and is there in the European Communities Act 1972. But, of course, European law only takes precedence where member states have agreed that Europe should have a competence. The idea that this is something new is therefore nonsense. This treaty also completes and consolidates the existing treaties of the European Union, and 75 per cent. of it is a repetition of what is in earlier treaties.
Among the many myths about the constitutional treaty that have been published over the last few months have been accusations that we would lose our rebate and our seat on the Security Council; that Brussels would seize control of our oil supplies; that the UK taxpayer would pay for other EU countries' pensions; that we would have to give up control of our Army or be forced to join the euro or to raise our taxes; that we would lose control of our borders or have our foreign policy dictated by Brussels. Now the British people have before them the text of the treaty as agreed—and it demolishes those myths. However, the myths, and the propaganda that goes with them, are not really about the constitutional treaty. They are about whether Britain should or should not be a leading member of the European Union.
The new Europe of 450 million people is a success for Britain. The new countries of Europe share our view that it should be run by sovereign nation states. They have joined the European Union for the stability, security and prosperity that it provides—the same stability, security and prosperity that we have enjoyed as members of the European Union for the past 30 years.
We are in the European Union for the single market and customs union that it provides for our goods and services, for the extra 1.8 per cent. of GDP that membership brings us every year and for the 3.5 million jobs that depend on that single market. We are also in the EU for the strength that it gives us in trade negotiations with powerful countries, such as the United States and Japan. We are in it for its network of aid and trade relationships with China, India and the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Those relationships make an important contribution to international peace and security and development.
Of course, there are frustrations and compromises, but the European Union is the most successful way anyone has yet devised of managing relations between European countries whose national rivalries had, until 60 years ago, only ever been settled in a series of bloody conflicts. Now we not only manage those rivalries; we
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1081
pool our combined strength for our economic advantage, for influence in the world, for peace, for security. The power of the European Union has helped eight countries of eastern and central Europe achieve democratic stability. It is transforming Turkey into a modern democratic state and it is helping to achieve peace in the Balkans. Not a single Government of a single nation—either those in Europe now or those wanting to join—opposed this treaty. All welcomed it. All want it to work. Many share the British view of Europe's future.
All that is what the opponents of this treaty would put in jeopardy for the sake not of any real British interest, but of a narrow nationalism, which no British Government have ever espoused or should ever espouse if they have the true interests of the British people at heart. In the end, the final say will be with the British people in a referendum. But in that debate, we will argue that this constitutional treaty represents a success for the new Europe that is taking shape, is a success for Britain and I commend it to the House today.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |