Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-50)
17 DECEMBER 2003
MR DENIS
MACSHANE MP, MR
DAVID FROST,
MR TIM
BARROW AND
MR PAUL
JOHNSTON
Q40 Mr Cash: It is all waffle, is it
not, Minister? You are trying to defend a position which has become
untenable. You went into these negotiations with certain red lines,
many of which were red herrings anyway, and what you have now
done is, effectively, just back off from the whole operation and
just left the United Kingdom in an almighty mess.
Mr MacShane: Mr Chairman, I am
happy always to debate with the Honourable Member for Stone and
use his vocabulary if it takes us further forward. My view is
that the White Paper presented to Parliament set out the Government's
position. It was clear, it was unambiguous and we maintained it.
I defended those positions, officials did, the Foreign Secretary
and the Prime Minister did, and inasmuch as we got to where we
got on Saturday the Presidency accepted that. There was a lot
of pressure from a lot of partner governments who are happy to
share sovereignty in some of those areas. We had to say "Sorry,
that is not where we want to be." We were not alone, as I
said, and I think what we were doing was defending the interests
of Europe as well as British national interests.
Q41 Mr Cash: Why did you not veto the
whole thing?
Mr MacShane: Because, as the Prime
Minister made clear, the Foreign Secretary made clear and I will
make clear, there were parts of the Convention and a satisfactory
Constitutional Treaty text that we would have welcomed. One thing
that some people are much concerned about is the excision of the
reference to "ever closer union". We now have got "ever
closer union" remaining in the existing treaties, and we
will have to live with it for ever more until we come to a new
Constitutional Treaty.
Q42 Mr Bacon: Minister, following the
collapse of the IGC, there has been talk among some Member States
of a two-speed Europe, with a hard-core moving ahead with closer
co-operation in certain areas. Do you think that that is just
a negotiating position—a threat, if you like—or is
it a real and viable possibility? Bearing in mind what the Treaty
says about how co-operation and initiatives within an EU context
must take place.
Mr MacShane: I think we will have
to explore this in some detail, and I hope perhaps we can have
a parliamentary debate or discussion on it. As the Prime Minister
has made clear, Europe does have areas of activity such as defence
where some countries come together—the euro, obviously,
is a prime example, and Schengen is another. I am looking forward
to the fact that the next four Presidencies (Ireland, the Netherlands,
Luxembourg and ourselves) will be two years of more liberal, open
trade and competitive thinking, and I hope that might give us
a real impetus to take forward the ideas in the Kok Report, some
of the ideas in the Sapir Report and make the Lisbon agenda have
some extra energy in it. I find it quite hard to see how you can
have an EU within an EU; how a number of countries—two,
three, four, five, six, seven or eight—would have such total
identity of interest that they would, as it were, create an inner
core. A two-speed Europe? There is a multi-speed Europe as it
is; some European economies are creating a lot more jobs than
others, some are prepared to take international security and defence
responsibilities more than others and some are more happy about
relaxing border controls than others. That is the European reality.
I have never driven a car with just two speeds on it, and I am
far from convinced—although the language sometimes is used—that
this is convertible into reality.
Mr Steen: I am just a little concerned
about this question of how we go forward. How do we move forward?
Are we going ahead? The question is "To what?" What
are we going ahead to? What is wrong with what we have got? What
are the new bits that we are aiming for? It strikes me that everybody
is aiming for different things. I am not being facetious when
I say this: why do we not look at whether we should be going backwards?
Q43 Mr Cash: There is no reverse gear.
Mr MacShane: I am glad the Honourable
Member for Stone plucked that arresting metaphor from a recent
speech, which I listened to with great care and not a little devotion.
The issue, I think, is that what we all want in Europe, I hope,
are jobs, material prosperity, a sense of living under a rule
of law, human rights, preserving our environment strength, and
the society in which we live having its rules looked after, and
our different cultures and identities. I am sounding a bit like
a Euro-evangelist, which I would not want to bore the Committee
with. For all of those things we will have to come to agreement
with others. I will give you a very specific example: it was Britain
that put into the text the notion that animals are sentient beings.
There are a number of other European countries which are quite
opposed to that because the moment you call animals sentient beings
they can be afforded protection in transportation and the rest
of it. That is of passionate importance to many people in our
country but not of a great deal of importance to citizens of other
countries. To get that in we have got to get these other countries
to agree with us. That is a British contribution, if you like.
I like the idea of standing still, no forward gear, no reverse
gear, just in neutral, but we cannot do that with our own House
of Commons; there are issues that emerge and whether it is responding
to security and defence issues in the Balkans or in Africa, or
whether it is responding to the problems of global warming or
responding to how we organise world trade rules—the re-launch
of Cancun—in all of those Europe is obliged, it seems to
me to take a position. We could break up into 25 competing nation-states,
all at each other's throats, but I do not think any of us has
got a real interest in that or would find it a very good way of
moving forward. But my own personal vision, and I have made it
in speech after speech since I have been Europe Minister, is a
Brechtian one, "Erst das Fressen, dann kommt die moral",
which in parliamentary language means "grub first, politics
later"—jobs, material advance, more wealth for everybody,
better salaries, and then let us worry about all the constitutional
and political stuff. I hope, perhaps, that in some of the next
two years' worth of Presidencies we might become a little more
Brechtian and a little less philosophically Hegelian.
Chairman: With that encouragement it
is time to go to Mr Marshall.
Q44 Mr Marshall: The Minister has used
the word "sentient"; I can only say that after 75 minutes
of this I feel very insentient. Maybe I do not qualify for the
protection that the UK has got. Minister, when you were replying
to Mr Bacon's original question on a two-speed Europe, and a hard-core
whatever—enhanced co-operation—you did actually mention
defence in your response. You will be aware that the Treaty of
Nice does actually specifically exclude enhanced co-operation
in the sphere of defence. If a number of core European Union Member
States do wish to progress co-operation in defence and security
matters, what structures will they do it under? Will they create
new structures which are not formally part of the European Union?
Or, maybe, they will use existing structures like the WEU, which
has formed such a vehicle in the past.
Mr MacShane: I do not think so.
I think on defence we have come out of Brussels with a very good
deal. There is a Council declaration on defence—language
there that has been principally negotiated between ourselves,
the French and the Germans and been discussed, obviously, with
all our NATO partners here and across the Atlantic, which sets
out very clearly how European defence will move forward, the hierarchy
of what NATO does, Berlin Plus and then the humanitarian/peace-keeping
missions which will be done by the EU and the administrative arrangements
to give effect to that. What we have not got is any new language
in the Treaty because we have not concluded a treaty on defence,
but quite separately all three governments are pleased because
it has showed how Europe can advance and make progress in some
quite tricky discussions on defence, as has been reported in the
press in the last few months.
Q45 Mr Marshall: What you are saying
is that there have been formal changes within the European institutions
themselves, in terms of the planning cell. However, if Britain,
France and Germany wish to co-operate far more closely—in
what would be termed enhanced co-operation which is specifically
excluded at the moment under the Treaty of Nice—how would
they progress that?
Mr MacShane: We would do it as
in the context of multinational co-operation.
Q46 Mr Marshall: So it would be non-EU?
Mr MacShane: It would not be governed
by provisions in a Constitutional Treaty, just as when three foreign
ministers went to Iran—Mr Straw, Mr Fischer and Mr de Villepin—to
deliver a very clear message, that was not formally a European
Union initiative but, nonetheless, in a sense, they were speaking
for Europe. What we have got, though, and this is important, is
the European Council putting out a lengthy statement which is
on the record setting out the agreement on defence, very strong,
positive language on NATO which we welcome, so that is there to
take us forward and guide us. What we have not got is any changes
in existing treaty clauses on defence because we never finished
the new Constitutional Treaty.
Q47 Chairman: I wonder, Minister, if
you could outline the most important points of the agreement that
was reached between the UK, Germany and France? According to the
Prime Minister, it was welcomed by the European Council.
Mr MacShane: Very simply, what
we achieved was—and I am quoting now the German Chancellor,
Mr Schroeder—to make clear that European defence is one
of the pillars of NATO; that there is a hierarchy of NATO first,
then European Union Member States agreeing to participate in a
mission but requiring to use NATO assets (air transport, intelligence
assets and so on), which is Berlin Plus, and finally there would
be a completely EU-only operation mainly in the carrying out of
Petersburg tasks—peace-keeping, humanitarian and policing.
We have already seen that in Macedonia and Bunia in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The other thing we have agreed is a complete
linking together of what the EU does and what NATO does, so a
planning cell at SHAPE, linked to the EU military staff that already
exists. We also excluded a standing headquarters, an EU headquarters
that would have its own independent role as operational headquarters.
So we have not got a full-time permanent staff to run an operational
headquarters and it would be principally national military headquarters
that would be the lead headquarters on operations. President Bush
has welcomed this in public statements, and as we look certainly
to the Balkans where European military and security presence is
required, as we look perhaps to other interventions in Africa
(the Great Lakes region remains of some very deep concern) I think
it is good that we are now able to give effect to the need for
Europe to accept defence responsibilities.
Q48 Chairman: Minister, we know there
was an accommodation reached with Ireland as a neutral country.
Were there any other Member States seeking accommodation outside
the agreement between the French and the Germans?
Mr MacShane: We should distinguish
between the Constitutional Treaty, where four neutral countries
made a de marche just before Friday, which we certainly
had considerable sympathy for. However, again, we never got to
that because the final text of the Constitutional Treaty was not
gone into as it became clear that on the issue of voting rights
we were not going to come to any agreement. Quite separately we
got a European Council decision welcoming the creation, principally
under the impetus of ourselves, France and Germany, of what I
have just referred to. Clearly, the neutral states are not going
to be directly involved in that unless they so choose, and of
course in a large number of peace-keeping and humanitarian operations,
Petersburg tasks, I have seen colleagues from neutral states—a
Finnish general was I think in Macedonia and the Swedes were in
Bunia—and we co-operate very closely with what may be neutral
countries but, believe me, are extremely professional armed services.
Q49 Chairman: Minister, I know you have
to be in Westminster Hall at 3.30. It is a measure of our interest
to say we have not got anywhere near through the areas we wanted
to look into.
Mr MacShane: I have probably given
too long answers.
Q50 Chairman: I think it is more because—and
I have likened you to a fly fisherman on occasions—I have
seen one or two of the flies being taken in one or two of your
answers, which I found very interesting. Minister, thank you very
much. We will consider writing to you to cover some of the areas
we missed, or we may even invite you back in the New Year, if
you can find time to come back and see us. Thank you.
Mr MacShane: A Happy Christmas
to you all.
Chairman: And the same to yourself.
|
