| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I have always said to my friends on the Eurosceptic end of the argument that those who are sceptical—honourably so—about Europe should be most in
favour of the referendum on the constitution, as they are now, but that they should argue for a constitution. A constitution is the one thing that will codify properly for the first time what Europe can and cannot do, where the line of accountability falls, what the jurisdiction is and what the right of appeal mechanism for individual citizens will be if they feel that they have been let down, abused, or undermined in terms of their civic rights as a result of a European institution.
When I was our party’s European spokesman, I voted on the issue in a free vote 15 years ago. The vote was split about 50:50. Interestingly, it was a generational split. People such as Russell Johnston, David Steel and Bob Maclennan voted against a referendum on Maastricht. Those of us of a slightly younger generation voted for a referendum. None the less, I took the view then and I still do now that, at some point, perhaps not as a result of this weekend’s machinations—we will see what if anything emerges from this country’s point of view, and I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said—but as surely as night follows day, there will have to be some kind of European referendum within domestic British politics. Perhaps it will not be on this issue. There was no referendum on the currency issue. Perhaps there will be a referendum on something else in a few years’ time, but, one way or another, we have to lance the boil when it comes to the European issue. I cannot see how we are ever going to achieve that either in this forum, as we go about our discussions on European policy, or in the parliamentary European forum, where there are such frustrations built in.
I hope that the new Prime Minister will provide leadership. That leadership is all the more essential, because the leadership of the Conservative party, as the second half of this Parliament wears on, is going to veer more and more—for reasons that we understand—in a UK Independence party direction. That is no good for proper engagement on the issues of substance. Indeed, the most startling comment made by the shadow Foreign Secretary was an almost throwaway aside towards the end of his speech, when he said that the Conservative party saw no need to revise or revisit the existing arrangements for the 27 members of Europe because the EU was working perfectly well from that point of view. Are we to understand that the British Conservative party wants to keep a rotating EU presidency while there are 27 members of the EU, with perhaps more to come in a few years? Does that make sense? Do we want a Commission of that size? Have the Conservatives spoken to people in the Commission who say that one of the net effects of the way in which things are constituted with 27 Commissioners—everyone must have their slice of pie and their national Commissioner—in addition to the slowness and bureaucracy attached to such a large Commission, is the fact that Mr. Barroso, the President of the Commission, inevitably brings to himself more authority because the body is too big to function properly? Unless the Commission’s present arrangements are streamlined, it will become less democratic than it would be as a result of implementing the practical issues that must be considered.
I hope that the Government will adopt a sensible, constructive approach and I wish them well in the
coming discussions. A good and true friend, which our country should be to Europe, is not an uncritical one. However, simply standing on the sidelines berating everything that emerges from Brussels without a sensible reform package cannot be a good way forward, either. In the longer term, we need the broad pro-European forces in Britain to regroup and re-engage. If that does not happen, our status as a country will diminish in Europe and the world. We will thus suffer economically and politically. That would be bad for not only our domestic aims, but our wider global aims and aspirations. There is therefore a need to inject fresh energy, idealism and integrity into our domestic European debate. If we did that, it would be beneficial for UK politics in general.
3.12 pm
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): At this point of the debate, hon. Members have already made many valid points. I welcomed the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which she outlined the areas that should remain the concern of individual nations. She also mentioned areas on which there is already EU co-operation. I do not wish to repeat the excellent clarification of the situation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. Both he and the Foreign Secretary are aware of, and sensitive to, the need to find an appropriate level for decision making.
The Government have recognised and implemented the principle of bringing decision making as close to the people as possible, both through the devolution settlement and the Government of Wales Act 2006, which enables the Assembly to reflect the will of the people in the new legislative competence orders. Likewise, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has been working hard on both the Government’s local government legislation and making the Sustainable Communities Bill workable. Again, he has the aim of practically bringing power as close to the people as possible.
I welcome the Government’s cautious approach to the EU negotiations. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not be signing away the so-called red line issues. He will be aware of the feelings of the House. I have no doubt that the negotiations will be difficult because the member states have such differing views. However, there might be room for some sort of tidying-up measures, and there is certainly a need to make the presidency more cohesive. The six-month presidency can lead to things becoming fragmented, depending on the negotiations between countries at the time of handover.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said, we need to ensure that we strengthen the role of national Parliaments. At the recent COSAC meeting that I attended, we found that the Dutch and the French were strong allies on that issue. Their parliamentary delegations were supportive of the idea of national Parliaments having greater involvement. That was extremely significant because they had probably studied the constitution, as it first was, in more detail than any other EU colleagues. They clearly see the need for a strong voice for national Parliaments.
With such focus on the constitution, I would not want us to forget the important matters on which we are already co-operating, one of which is tackling climate change. We must ensure that the EU emissions trading scheme is effective. Its first phase unfortunately got a bad reputation because of some Governments’ lax approach to setting appropriate emissions levels. I have the privilege of being a member of the Committee that is considering the draft Climate Change Bill. We have taken evidence from a broad range of interested parties, including leaders in business and manufacturing. They welcome the framework of the Bill and its target of a 60 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2050. However, many refer to the importance of EU and worldwide attempts to limit emissions. When we took evidence by video link from California, it was clear that people there also valued EU initiatives in the field.
The Foreign Secretary has a detailed understanding of the EU emissions trading scheme, so I ask her to use her influence with her colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and her role in Europe to help to ensure that the scheme is appropriately implemented throughout Europe so that a level playing field is created for UK industry. She will be well aware that the effectiveness of the first phase of the ETS was seriously marred by the fact that some EU countries allocated carbon quotas too generously. It is important that a Union of comparatively rich and influential countries take a lead on the issue.
Even under existing arrangements, there has been helpful co-operation on issues such as terrorism, as the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) said. We need to use the existing channels so that we can co-operate on cross-border crime. In particular, we must tackle the despicable practice of human trafficking, the very existence of which is a real disgrace to a European Union that likes to pride itself on its progressive and civilised traditions. While it is important that we are not blind to the shortcomings of the EU, we must continue to use the existing channels to tackle the major issues that concern us all.
3.17 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con): We all know people who have identity crises of one kind or another. They do not really know what sort of people they want to be, what their values are, or what sort of life they want to lead. Such people are among our friends and relations. Some do not know whether to get married, while others do not know whether they should get divorced. Some do not really like the job that they are doing, but cannot think of one that they would rather do, while others cannot quite make up their mind about where they want to live. On the whole, most of us treat such people sympathetically. We tend to hope that with the passage of time and the advent of maturity, they will be able to sort things out and feel happy in a role that they have consciously chosen for themselves.
When it comes to our membership of the European Union, that description sadly applies to a large number of people in this country and the majority of members of my party, both on these Benches and in the country as a whole. Of course, there are many exceptions on
both sides of the argument. I pay tribute to colleagues such my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), who have always taken part in these debates. Those men know very clearly where they stand on this issue and have taken immense time and trouble over 20 years to master the brief. They have expended energy, and when their stance was not in fashion in the party they suffered owing to the damage caused to their careers and the great pressure that their colleagues exerted on them. However, they have not been put off standing up to speak what they believe to be the truth that they feel they must proclaim to the House and the nation. I sincerely admire them for that; they are great parliamentarians. Other colleagues have signed some sort of petition or undertaking calling for us to get out of the European Union. Still other colleagues have not signed, but have put it about that they sympathise with that call.
On the other side of the party, there are those of us who have a long track record in standing up for the European Union and who believe that it is the most magnificent asset created by the generation immediately preceding us, which we should do everything possible to nurture, strengthen and hand on to future generations in an even more effective and democratic state. The European Union has, after all, been the framework in which we have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity in western Europe over the past two generations. It has been a major factor for world peace and a pole of stability in the world. It is the institution that has enabled countries to make an astonishingly successful and rapid transition from communism to democracy, and it has diffused and dissolved the appalling ethnic and national conflicts in eastern Europe that have been endemic for centuries.
It is now clear to us that the European Union is the only vehicle available to us to address the major challenges and achieve our major collective purposes in the years ahead. Among those challenges are global warming—which has rightly been mentioned so often in the House this afternoon—energy security, and relationships with difficult, unpredictable, autocratic Governments in countries such as Russia and Iran.
It is an inconceivably naïve illusion that such countries or Governments, or those of India or China, would take much notice these days of Her Britannic Majesty’s ambassador or Her Britannic Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs sending them a note indicating that he or she was not entirely happy with their conduct. Such things would have worked well 100 years ago, but they do not work now.
If we want to contribute to a world trade agreement; perhaps to a global emissions trading scheme in due course; or, in the immediate future, to get acceptance for quotas for carbon emissions, which we desperately need; and if we want to have an impact on world terrorism or world poverty, we can no longer use the purely national instruments and institutions that we used with great pride for centuries. There is a natural human tendency not to adapt to new conditions—a natural psychological inertia. Many people are very attached to those institutions and believe that they represent the end of the story.
I very much hope that the current position may change. Ever since I have been in the House I have hoped that people would wake up and recognise that the idea of one foot in, one foot out makes no sense. That is the most hopeless and helpless approach to getting the best out of any relationship in life or any institution. One cannot run a family, a business or a country that way, and one cannot get the best out of the European Union that way. As a country, we must grow up and decide which way we are going.
If we are staying in the European Union—my colleagues on the Front Bench are not currently calling for us to leave it—let us throw ourselves into it with wholehearted commitment, not agreeing to anything that happens to be suggested, but making it clear that we are thoroughly committed to the success of the venture, that we are 100 per cent. part of it, and that we recognise it as essential for achieving our national purposes in the future. At that point, we should say clearly that we want to take a pragmatic view of the powers, rule changes or mechanisms that need to be revised from time to time.
It is absurd to say that there should not be another instance of qualified majority voting. “No more qualified majority voting,” I hear my hon. Friends saying from the Front Bench. “We are not going for that. It is beyond the pale. No more powers should go to Brussels.” That is not a pragmatic view—it is a dogmatic view that ill serves the interests of this country. There are many situations in which it is very much in the national interest that there should be more qualified majority voting. That goes for many parts of the third pillar, justice and home affairs. We should be having a pragmatic argument, not an essentially childish argument about no more of a particular type of decision-making mechanism.
The great Margaret Thatcher did not believe that. She brought in and pushed through the House a Single European Act, which introduced the concept of qualified majority voting. Now the heirs and successors of the great Margaret Thatcher are saying mindlessly, “No, no, no. No more increases in qualified majority voting. Whether or not that is in the national interest, we are dogmatically opposed to it.” I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on the Front Bench that I have no sympathy with that point of view. I cannot and will not go along with it. I hope that he appreciates that.
Let me deal with some of the concrete opportunities that we have in the next few days at the European summit for real progress in making that valuable institution even more effective. It is abject nonsense to say that there are no practical reasons for the proposals for new mechanisms and rule changes. For example, the Commission currently consists of 27 people. A number of us in the House have sat on the boards of quoted companies. I cannot conceive of a board of a company comprising 27 people and operating effectively. It defies imagination. It is glaringly obvious that something needs to be done about that. We have an opportunity in the next few days, so let us do so.
I take as another example the External Relations Commissioner and the High Representative. I have the honour to sit on the International Development Committee and I see the whole time how dysfunctional that distinction is. Developing countries—the same
goes for developed countries, although I do not happen to get involved so much in that context—need an interlocutor from the European Union who can take part in the same conversation, in the same room, at the same time about the whole range of issues that need to be discussed between us, including aid and trade, which are the responsibility of the External Relations Commissioner, and the human rights issues, foreign policy, anti-terrorism measures and so on, which are the responsibility of the High Representative.
That makes no sense at all. If, instead of Mr. Javier Solana and Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner going round the world on the same plane, one is present but not the other, they will be able to cover only half the agenda. As we all know, if international relations are to be successful, they depend on packages being put together. The present situation is nonsense. We have the opportunity to do something about it—let us make sure that we do so.
The same is true of the presidency. The idea of a country holding the presidency for six months and then not again for another 15 years makes no sense. It leads to a total lack of continuity. The idea of asking Malta, whose population is slightly less than that of the city of Bristol, to provide the whole bureaucratic structure to manage the business of the Union for six months makes no sense. I do not say a word against the Maltese. I would not think that Lincolnshire was capable of taking over the conduct of the European Union’s affairs for six months, and I have the highest admiration for the people of Lincolnshire.
We need to get away from dogmatism and get back to the good Conservative principle of pragmatism—the good Conservative principle of taking a fair-minded, open-minded look at the national interest and being brave enough to draw the conclusions that emerge from that.
3.28 pm
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): I am pleased once again to have an opportunity to speak on European matters. I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who gave his game away by talking about Europe as a company, with a managing director running the show. Government is about democracy—choices, competing philosophies and people choosing which philosophy to be governed by. That is what democracy is about.
I commend the Foreign Secretary on doing the best possible job with an almost impossible brief. She is a very competent Minister whom I have always admired, but on this occasion she has had a difficult job to do. I congratulate the shadow Foreign Secretary on his speech, which as usual was witty, intelligent and competent, and I agree with almost everything that he said. The difference between the shadow Foreign Secretary and myself is one of political philosophy. I want the British people to continue to have the right to choose to be governed by a Conservative Government, governed by Conservative principles, or a Government of democratic socialism, which I would support. If we do not watch what Europe is doing, we will not have the choice in future.
We are at another significant moment in the European Union saga. There is another attempt to
bounce Britain and other member states into a legally binding constitutional treaty by another name. We have seen a week or two of spin and counter-spin in our media. There is no doubt in Chancellor Merkel’s mind what she wants; she is pretty plain in what she says. She wants to get the treaty through in one form or another, either in pieces or by deception. Our newspapers have been full of leaks, I suspect from different addresses in Downing street, and perhaps the Foreign Office as well. I hope that the Prime Minister will not mind my suggesting that he has hung on as long as possible to get his deal on Europe and to dig a hole for his successor to fall into. I hope that his successor will not be taken in by that and will make his own decisions when he becomes Prime Minister in nine days’ time, which I look forward to very much. I hope that he will have a much more sensible, pragmatic and democratic approach to Europe than the present Prime Minister, who has been rather gung-ho about matters European.
This week we are in danger of a pretty dodgy deal being stitched up, effectively without the consent of this House and certainly without the consent of the British people. I, for one, want a referendum on whatever comes out of the summit, if it is agreed by our leaders. If there is no agreement, that will suit me fine, and it would suit the British people fine. The people of Europe would be quite happy to muddle along with the status quo. The skies will not fall in and life as we know it will not change. We will just carry on. Many things are wrong with the EU. I would like to see many dramatic changes, making it more democratic, and more powers being given back to Parliaments. If the treaty does not go through, it may upset Chancellor Merkel, but it will not upset many other people, certainly not the British people, who would probably have a little drink to celebrate.
As I say, I am confident that the Foreign Secretary will fight our corner behind the scenes. She portrayed a little less enthusiasm for all things European by mentioning the fact that she voted no in the 1975 referendum. I myself was chair of the Luton “Vote no” campaign at that time, so there is no secret about my views. Unlike others, who may have wobbled a bit, I have not changed. However, I have thought about European matters ever since. I keep talking about Europe, but it is the European Union. Europe is a geographical entity and the EU is a political and economic construct thrust upon part of Europe, because we must not forget that quite a bit of Europe is outside the EU, so I must refer to the European Union, not to Europe.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |