| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): Mr. Speaker, this constitution is bad for our democracy, bad for jobs and bad for Britain. The Prime Minister has said that we must separate myth from reality. All I can say is, look who's talking: the great myth-maker himself.
The Prime Minister has hailed this constitution as a great success for Britain. In fact, only 27 of the 275 amendments submitted by the Government to the European Convention have been included in the final draft. That is one in 10. In the Prime Minister's version of Euro 2004, the score is UK 27; EU 248. Well, we all hope England do better than that tonight.
Now let us deal with some of the so-called myths. The Prime Minister said that he did not want a
"single, legally binding document called a Constitution."
But the document is called "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe". Not that the Prime Minister could bring himself to mention the word constitution this afternoon. That is hardly surprising. The dictionary definition of a constitution is
"the principles on which a State is governed".
The Leader of the House said that the title "Foreign Minister" was "unacceptable", but now it is in article I-27. Where is the myth in that? The Government tried to delete the proposed measures on criminal procedure, but now they are in article III-171. Where is the myth in that? The Government tried to delete the measures on energy, but now they are in article III-157. Where is the myth in that? The Prime Minister said that there was no proposal for a separate European military planning capability, but now it is on page 20 of the Council conclusions. Where is the myth in that?
The Government opposed the European public prosecutor. That was one of their so-called red lines. They said:
"Unanimity does not mean that"—
"can be accepted."
But the public prosecutor is there, in article III-175. Where is the myth in that? The Prime Minister boasted—he said it again this afternoon—that the constitution
"gives a role to national parliaments of a greater degree than ever before."
But after Parliament has had its say, the Commission can ignore it. That is in the snappily named "Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality." Where is the myth in that? Does not all that go to show that the only myth we have here is the Prime Minister's claim that this is a success for him and for Britain?
Is not the reality that there will now be new burdens on business and on our public services? Is not the reality that this constitution will make it easier for the European Court to use European Union legislation, such as the working time directive and the works councils directive, to bring in even more red tape from Brussels? [Hon. Members: "No."] Have not business leaders already warned that the constitution will "harm our prosperity"? [Hon. Members: "No."] Will there not be more interference from the European Court on asylum policy? [Hon. Members: "No."] Will that not threaten even the Government's own measures on asylum, including their plans to restrict benefits to those who apply late? [Hon. Members: "No."] Will not the Commission mean that the European Union can now interfere, in the Government's words, in "almost any aspect" of criminal procedure? [Hon. Members: "No."] Well, they say no, but they should read the document. If they did so, they would know that that is the reality of what the Prime Minister has signed up to. Will not the European public prosecutor have wide-ranging powers to direct police, order arrests, prosecute and choose the country where a trial should be held? Did not even the Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee say that
"the proposal . . . has the potential for creating an engine of oppression"?
Why on earth did the Prime Minister agree to that? How can this Parliament protect British interests when, in 43 new areas of policy, we can have measures imposed on us by majority voting against our will?
The charter of fundamental rights is a case study in Government surrender. The Prime Minister has been dragged along, step by step, against his better judgment. First the Government did not want this charter at all. Then, when they lost that argument, Ministers said that they did not want it included in the treaty. Then they argued that it should be moved to a protocol. When the charter was finally included in the constitution, the Government called for safeguards to stop it undermining our national law. But on Friday, the President of the European Court of Justice said that the constitution would bring new areas and new subjects under the Court's jurisdiction, and he refused to give any guarantees that the charter would have no impact on national law.
The Prime Minister says that he will take the constitution to the country. It is not the first time he has said that. Five years ago, with the hand of history resting on his shoulder, he said that
"once in every generation the case for Europe has to be restated".
He said that he would give leadership. Six months later, when nothing had happened, he said:
"Once in each generation, the case for Britain in Europe needs to be remade . . . The time for this generation is now."
We have just had elections to the European Parliament during which the Prime Minister did not make a single speech on Europe. That is what he means by leadership. The Prime Minister's definition of leadership is to press the mute button, and press it hard.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there is now a real opportunity to get the British view accepted because there is a lot of support for it. I agree; there is indeed a lot of support for the British view. What a pity that the Prime Minister did not put the British view when he was in Brussels last week.
The British view is that there should be a modern, flexible, reformed Europe; a Europe ready for the challenges of the 21st century; a Europe that is truly free, based on co-operation and not coercion; a Europe that transfers powers back from Brussels to the nation state—truly a Europe of live and let live. That is what the Prime Minister should have been arguing for in Brussels last week. That is what the people of this country want.
Let us have none of that nonsense about the referendum being a question of in or out of Europe; it is about the kind of Europe that we want to see. Let me make it clear: I am opposed to this constitution and I will play my part in a cross-party campaign, involving people from all parts of the country and all walks of life, to say no to this constitution. Britain does not need to wait until the last minute to decide; we do not need to wait until other countries have spoken. Why cannot Britain do what the Prime Minister says he wants to do and give a lead in Europe? Why does he not lead rather than just follow?
The fact is that the Prime Minister knows that he has no mandate whatever for this constitution. There was nothing in his manifesto on the constitution and the British people rejected it at the polls only 10 days ago. The fate of this constitution will not be decided by the right hon. Gentleman; it will be decided by the British people, so why does he not let the British people speak, and let them speak now?
The Prime Minister: Let me deal with some of the points of detail. First, the constitutional treaty is a treaty like any other. It has exactly the same status.
Secondly, in relation to criminal law, the procedures that we have agreed will mean that should we object to a particular proposal, it can be blocked. That allows us to make progress in areas where we want to do so but to block things that we think are against our interest.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in respect of energy. There is actually a tax carve-out for energy, which is the same as the one for the environment.
European Union defence is to be maintained at governmental level and governed by unanimity. It is true that there is power to establish a European public prosecutor but it can be done only by unanimity and, therefore, requires our consent.
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1084
In respect of national Parliaments, yes it is true that if a third of them object they cannot block the European Commission proposal, but for the first time they are able to take objection to it and send it back to the Commission—[Interruption.] Let us put it like this: that is a lot more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever secured when he was negotiating for this country in Europe. May I remind him that the working time directive was actually agreed when he was in government, not when we were in government?
The document does not affect our asylum laws. One of the less pleasant myths in some of the propaganda put out is that somehow Europe decides our asylum and immigration laws. It does not; we decide them. The House of Lords European Committee said that the treaty shifted the balance back towards the nation state. As for the idea that in the whole of the rest of Europe people are rejoicing that this is some federalist blueprint, let me read a few recent quotes about that.
"Europe is and will be a Union of"
"States."
The leader of Germany in Bavaria:
"The EU will not have the right to set taxes and Europe is not going to be a federal state."
"I do not believe that current developments are going to give rise to a European federal state".
"a revival of the nation-state principle again."
I seem to remember that Poland was prayed in aid by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the last time he was here—the plucky Poles standing up and not wanting this constitutional treaty—but, in fact, they are with us in wanting it, but on the right terms. The President of Poland:
"The treaty doesn't mean we create a new state of Europe or something like a European federation."
Or, for example, this quote from an editorial in one of the main newspapers in Spain, El Mundo:
"this is a Constitution . . . which consecrates the EU as a union of sovereign states, which continues not to opt for federal institutions".
In the main commentary in Corriere della Sera, in Italy:
"The British won the day."
"the EU is no longer run by the Franco-German axle."
In another Spanish paper, but I am almost too modest to mention it:
"Blair, the big winner of the Summit, achieved everything he wanted."
Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman so anxious to have the referendum without the parliamentary debate and scrutiny? Because he has everything to fear from a detailed understanding and everything to gain from haste and headlines.
I shall turn to some of the issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised on the qualified majority voting extensions. It is true that there are qualified majority voting extensions on things like, for example, the diplomatic and consular protection rules, on things
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1085
like patents, on things like appointments to specialist judicial panels, on things like the armament agency rules and on things like the salary of the European Court of Justice judges. But let us compare this treaty with the two documents that he agreed: the Single European Act, where 12 whole areas were moved to QMV, including health and safety and, yes, the free movement of workers—something that Conservative Members now object to—and of course I was looking at the Maastricht treaty to see what it extended.
The Maastricht treaty created European citizenship. It added foreign policy, justice and home affairs. It transferred 15 whole new areas of power to the European Parliament. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman attacks this treaty, he should have been screaming the place down over Maastricht. Instead, he voted for Maastricht, and he is now left in the ludicrous position of having to argue that, somehow, Britain ceases to be a nation state because the rules on diplomatic and consular protection go to QMV. His true position is not, of course, hostility to this treaty—it would not matter what this treaty says; his opposition to this treaty is just a device to get to his real position, which is to renegotiate not this treaty, but the existing terms of Britain's membership of the European Union. He has said that he wants to renegotiate—perhaps he would just confirm this—the social chapter.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |