---

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there should be any criteria other than those that are laid down. I agree that there should not be any block on any candidate emerging from a country that is not a member of the eurozone.

As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he is absolutely right—this is not an unusual position for a British Prime Minister to be in, I am afraid, as very partisan views are sometimes expressed on the issue. However, we are in a bizarre situation in which virtually every other country in Europe thinks that this has been a victory for the British position. Unfortunately, that realisation needs to dawn here, and I accept that that will take a bit of work. It is odd that not a single country elsewhere in Europe would recognise this as a federal blueprint.

Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): The Prime Minister referred to 18 June as an historical day, but is it not an historical day for all of Europe? He referred to bloody conflict, and is it not true that over the centuries we have fought the Spanish, the French, the Germans, the Italians and the former states of the Hapsburg empire, and that those wars are over for all time? He referred to the single market, and the 1.8 per cent. gross domestic product and 3.5 million jobs for which it is responsible. Has that not contributed to the greatest prosperity that we have ever experienced, and should the
 
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1089
 
word not go forth from this time and place that, to adapt the words of a former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, what kind of a people do they think the British are to turn their back on the greatest success story since 1945?

The Prime Minister: I obviously agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but there is another argument and, in a sense, a more modern one. Europe is indeed changing, and the countries that have recently joined the European Union share the British perspective for obvious historical reasons. I find it hard to understand why, when those new countries basically share the British perspective of Europe as a group of nation states, we should want to put ourselves in a marginalised position in Europe. That is what is so extraordinary about the position that has been taken. We have a huge opportunity if we are prepared to grasp it.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statements that Britain will retain its autonomy in matters of foreign policy with a constitution that provides for a foreign Minister and foreign policy that, it states,

"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support"?

The Prime Minister: Let me quote from the Maastricht treaty—[Hon. Members: "No."] I quote from that treaty to show how ludicrous it is to suppose that what is in this treaty is any different from what we have had for over 10 years. The Maastricht treaty says:

"The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."

This treaty says:

"The Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".

There is a notion that this is a great new development in the European Union, and it has been suggested that I would have to ask for the French President's permission before I did anything more with the USA. I should have thought that the one thing that has been obvious over the past couple of years—this may, or may not, recommend itself to people—is that we have pursued a highly independent foreign policy.

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) (Lab): May I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust and enjoyable presentation of the case for British membership of Europe? May I ask him to remind the House that the proposal for the new post of President of the Council of Ministers was first made by Britain, and that we supported it for several years to secure our negotiation? It would be perverse if those who worry about federalism were to persuade Britain to stop that post coming into being, when it represents a new person in Brussels speaking for the member states and the nations of Europe. Is it not a measure of the opportunism that we have heard today that if the Opposition had been in government they would have presented as a triumph, not a sell-out, a deal half as good as the one that my right hon. Friend has negotiated?
 
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1090
 

The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend. It is true that there is a presidency of the European Council now, but it rotates every six months. It is important to get a full-time chairman of the Council because, at the moment, states rotate the presidency every six months and as a result, on the Lisbon agenda for economic reform, for example, it becomes difficult for the next presidency to pick up what the previous presidency has done. It is far more efficient for the member states and Governments of Europe to have a full-time chairman.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): Under the constitution, all the existing EU institutions, including those that are riddled with mismanagement and waste at present, gain at the expense of national Parliaments and people. To take one example from the 250 failed amendments tabled by the Government representatives when it was being drawn up, the Government promised to remove all references to the European public prosecutor. The Government representative said:

"Unanimity does not mean that this article can be accepted".

In other words, he wanted it completely out. It was an unambiguous Government red line. Now the Government have accepted it, and I understand it was not even raised during the final negotiations. Does the Government's pledge to hold a referendum have the same status—in other words, is it a firm and unambiguous pledge that is abandoned when it gets difficult for the Government?

The Prime Minister: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman why we agreed with the notion that there could be a European public prosecutor, provided that is done with unanimity, so we have to give our consent. It is precisely for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. There is a need to deal with issues to do with fraud and accountancy problems in the European Union, so how on earth does it help for us to disappear off into the sidelines of Europe? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that his view of Europe is that Britain should renegotiate its existing terms of membership. That is his point, is it not? Therefore, if we are to have an honest debate, why does he not accept that his objection is not to this treaty, but to Britain's existing membership of the European Union?

Mr. Speaker: I call Frank Field.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab/Co-op): Oh, no.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Oh, yes. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that if other countries veto the constitution before he calls a referendum, the British people will still have their say on what they think of this move?

The Prime Minister: Yes. There is no question of any constitutional treaty going through without the express consent of the British people. [Interruption.] Of course—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the good of hon. Members shouting the Prime Minister down? They might not like the answers, but they should be quiet when the Prime Minister is giving his reply.

The Prime Minister: Exactly so. Regardless of how other members vote, we will have a referendum on the subject.
 
21 Jun 2004 : Column 1091
 

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): What is it about the workings of the common fisheries policy over the past 30 years that has persuaded the Prime Minister that it should be an exclusive competence, not a shared competence, as he told the House previously? The vast bulk of it is one of only four exclusive competences in the new constitution.

The Prime Minister: The common fisheries policy was entered into by the previous Government. It is sensible that we have it. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said on many occasions, that it is a cruel deception to pretend that the fishing industry's problems are to do with the European Union when, as he knows perfectly well, they are to do with the depletion of fish stocks. It is not a problem that exists just in this country or in the rest of Europe. It exists right around the world at present. It is to prey on people's fears in a wholly disingenuous way to suggest that if Britain got out of the common fisheries policy, it would help the British fishing industry.

---