Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Shepherd:
Very easily. I believe in the Locke premise, which is that we cannot give things away without reference to the people. Churchill said that the people are sovereign, and I believe that we are merely
their representatives. When this or any Government attempt to sell off or assign to others responsibility for judgments on great matters of public policy, that is a matter beyond our competence. It is a matter for the competence of the people as a whole, after an informed debate leading to a referendum. That is what I am arguing for.
I understand that the Minister for Europe may not know his Locke, but the thinking about these matters is very old. I can reconcile my approach, because the sovereignty of Parliament and democratic Government that we now espouse and promoteI am here by virtue of itbegan with the autocratic dictatorship of monarchy and progressed through oligarchy. Our struggle has always been to hold the Crown in check, and that is what we do in this Chamber. Unfortunately, the Prime Ministers majority means that the Crown is now with him in Downing street, but that is no excuse for us if we forget what our business is and where the trust of those whom we should serve lies. That is why the EU cannot satisfy the democratic question.
I had not intended to indulge in that flourish. I was going to talk about Roman Herzog, the German Chancellor between 1994the time of Maastrichtand 1999. After his time in office, he researched the extent of his countrys Government, looking at some interesting figures for the total number of so-called legislative instruments that had been passed. He found that most of the laws in force in Germany were no longer passed in the German Parliament, but in the EU.
It is hard for us to get to grips with that. When the Minister for Europe was Leader of the House, and therefore Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, we wanted to find out the extent of European legislation. Our inquiry was never concluded, but the Cabinet Office suggested that 40 per cent. of legislation came from Europe. When I asked about that figure, it disappeared from the Cabinet Office website, but figures from the German Ministry of Justice comparing the number of legislative processes in that country between 1998 and 2004 with the amount of EU legislation in the same period found that 84 per cent. of all laws were passed in Brussels, and only 16 per cent. in Berlin.
What was former President Herzogs conclusion? In translation, he said:
We have to ask whether the Federal Republic of Germany can still be unequivocally described as a parliamentary democracy.
That is at the heart of why some of us are taking part in this debate. Can we be described unequivocally as a parliamentary democracy? I do not doubt that the balance of the legislative process in this country would reflect that of Germany, or of Lithuania.
I mention Lithuania, because it ratified the original constitutional treaty before it had been published in the European news circuit. Come on the new political classes that govern with their strange elections. What does public opinion matter? The document was a joyous expression; it had 400 inaccuracies after translation. We may be forming a union in which people expound their views by hallelujah choruses, but this Chamber to the last will go line by line through the detail of the constitutional arrangements that affect it.
The Minister is quieter now. Perhaps I have exhausted him, but the Foreign Office must pull itself
togetheror rather the Foreign Secretary must do so. We are in an absurd position. Two days before an important discussion about how the European Union will see its way through the misconceived judgments of the French and Dutch electorates, we are listening to a Prime Minister who is going out of the door having endorsed the constitution. That is the difficulty; he actually endorsed it.
The Prime Minister promised us a referendum should the constitution come about, although all his fingers and toes were crossedwe understand thatbut the man who could endorse that and the Cabinet that could agree leave us doubtful as to their intent. I no longer trust the processes whereby Government proceed and accede to the European Union. It is disgraceful that we do not engagethat there is no way forward, no repatriation of powers and no understanding of what this country needs. That is why we must have a referendum.
Willie Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife) (LD): I was not a Member in the 1990s but I watched the great European debates about Maastricht, so it is a great honour to follow speakers such as the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). It is easy to see why this place must have been electrifying during those debates in the 90s [ Interruption. ] Labour Members shake their headsperhaps they had a different experience.
I apologise to the House for arriving late. Unfortunately, I was in Uxbridge for five hours being fitted for a gas mask for a forthcoming trip with the Select Committee on Defence. It was a frustrating experience. I thought that the congestion across the Forth bridge was bad until my experience of Uxbridge congestion, which was much worse.
This morning, I was reading about possible coalition deals with Labour, so when I saw the empty Labour Benches this afternoon I wondered whether crossing the Floor would increase my chances of being called to speak. However, I reassure Labour Members that we have no intention of crossing the Floor today.
I entered the House 15 months ago and this is my first European debate. I took part in a debate on the EU-China relationship in a European Standing Committee scrutiny session, which was attended by the Minister for TradeI am sorry that he is not on the Treasury Bench at present. During that debate, we exposed a number of issues relating to Chinaon Africa, human rights, trade and the environment. They offered examples of why Europe is a good thingwhy Europe can contribute to our nation and the rest of the world. If we were acting alone, we would not have the same influence on China as the EU has, which is why it is important that we have confidence in the EU, even with all its faults, and work with it to achieve a better world.
I do not go along with the approach of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), which is to muddle along in Europe. That gets us no further forward. Like many Conservative Members, we recognise that there are many faults in the EU, but muddling along is not the way to sort out the
difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) made an inspirational and honourable speech, which showed why we should be enthusiastic for Europe.
I will give the House two quick reasons why we need to reform. They are quite simple reasons and I am sure the public would understand them. Having 27 members of the Commission is completely unacceptable. It is not a way to run any kind of business or democracy. That is why we need to rationalise. To have any hope of building relationships with countries outside and within Europe, we need more than a six-month presidency of the European Union.
Mr. Hands: The hon. Gentleman is repeating the mantra that the EU cannot cope with 27 Commissioners. Can he give us an example from the last three years of when the EU has been stymied by having 25 or 27 Commissioners and has been unable to put forward its business?
Willie Rennie: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out many faults with the European Union in the past. I am sure that having 27 members of the Commission is one of the reasons why we are not able to advance. He is much more knowledgeable than me and can come up with many more examples than I can.
During the 90s, I was often in eastern Europe, where I took part in training for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I often came across European countries that were extremely enthusiastic about joining not just NATO, but the European Union. They saw membership as providing access to the modern world and as a way of improving their economies and internal processes. I wish we could inspire that enthusiasm for Europe, which has existed in the past, in this country.
There is enthusiasm for Europe in my local area. Rosyth ferry port provides access to the ferry to Zeebrugge. That is extremely popular with traders, as well as visitors to the European continent. West Fife Enterprise gives access to European grants to try to provide new opportunities for young people in training and enterprise. We even have motorbike shops that trade in euros. For that to happen is a sign of the enthusiasm for Europe in Fife.
I want to make two quick points before I move on the main thrust of my speech. Yesterday we found out that there has been movement on the official legal recognition of whisky. [Hon. Members:Hear, hear!] I hear cheers from Members, and quite right too. It is a great drink. I am sure that whisky producers in Scotland will welcome the legal recognition and that there will be the required economic boost. A slightly more negative point relates to the food supplement regulations that are being introduced. The efforts by the European Union to control the maximum limits on food supplements, vitamins and mineral are a negative step. I hope that the Minister will consider those proposals; I am sure that the Government are doing so already.
I wish to discuss Turkey, whose accession to the European Union has been 40 years in the waiting. In Europe, we have secured more than 40 years of peace and prosperity among member states, but we have often looked towards our boundaries to try to expand
that peace. Turkey is one of the immediate neighbours that we should look to engage with further and ultimately welcome into a further expanded European Union. The European Economic Community promised Turkey membership, albeit conditionally, more than 40 years ago, and we have often repeated the commitment since. Turkey has been seeking integration into Europe ever since, economically and, as far as possible, politically. It has launched major internal changes to facilitate membership. Not admitting Turkey once it meets the EU standards would be extremely damaging.
We will all be aware of the recent political troubles in Turkey involving the ruling AK party and the debate about the election of the President. Of course, Turkish membership of the European Union is not just around the corner because stringent criteria must be met for it to be able joinand rightly so. The oppression of the Kurds in eastern Turkey cannot simply be forgotten, for example. However, the fact that the death penalty has been abolished is a hugely encouraging sign of progress. The issues that stand in the way of membership are not insubstantial, however, and will take time to resolve.
The current Turkish Government have presided over a number of consecutive years of substantial economic growth. Evidently, it would be folly to rule out the membership of such a diverse and strategically important country as Turkey. Members of the European Union should not create artificial barriers or unexpected hurdles. If Turkey fulfils its criteria, it is entitled to accession, but we should make it clear that Turkey cannot qualify on economic grounds alone and that pluralism, the rule of law and freedom of speech must be realities, not merely aspirations.
Britain has been robust in its support for the enlargement of the EU. In 2004, we supported the accession of 10 new countries to the EU, while in 2007, we have supported two more member states. We should maintain that position because a diverse and large Europe will benefit us all.
The Defence Committee, of which I am a member, has been scrutinising the European security and defence policy. We examined the importance of the policy during trips to Washington, Canada and European countries. As we try to meet the challenges of terrorism and rogue states, we need to ensure that we work together for the benefit of us all and the freedoms and rights that we protect in this country. However, the concept of simply relying on NATO is ill conceived.
The scaremongering of Eurosceptics, with their usual anti-European stance, is predictable on this front, as it is on many fronts. They complain when other countries try to introduce more qualified majority voting in the EU, presumably because they do not wish to be railroaded by those countries, but when it comes to NATO, they attempt to railroad other countries into participating in conflicts for which there is little domestic support. I encourage members of NATO and the EU to do their fair share in conflicts such as that in Afghanistan. Such countries have often not stepped up to the plate or reduced the number of caveats to their participation. However, it is extremely unreasonable simply to require them to participate in conflicts when they have difficulties at home. The approaches on NATO and the EU seem to conflict.
Mr. Shepherd: Does not the hon. Gentleman see the distinction between the European Union, which has a legislative aspect, and an organisation under the Washington treaty that is not legislated for by this place and, ultimately, cannot be mandated?
Willie Rennie: The hon. Gentleman makes an appropriate point. I am talking about the approach to the organisations. I am trying to make the broad point that we seem to try to lay guilt on other countries for not playing their part in NATO, but we reject other countries attempts to encourage us to become wider members of the European Union. There is in an inconsistency in the approach.
Mr. Ellwood: I am sorry to challenge the hon. Gentleman, but I think that there is an inconsistency in his argument. NATO has a straightforward remit. I will be curious to hear his views on this, but if there is any concern, it is the struggle over whether member nations should participate in both NATO and the rapid reaction corps with 60,000 members that the European Union is trying to set up. I do not believe that it would be possible to be part of both. At the moment, colonels and commanders are double-hatting, but they cannot be in two places at once.
Willie Rennie: The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of knowledge about this matter, but, in principle, he is wrong. There is no reason why we must have a simple process in order for things to work. Many comparisons regarding soft and hard power have been made between the ESDP and NATO. There is no reason why we cannot work together on different conflicts to try to find suitable strengths. If it takes the ESDP to make member states take on their responsibilities outside the boundaries of NATO and the EU, we should use that route. We must recognise that countries have problems with which they must deal, so it is not appropriate simply to demand that they play a greater part.
Mr. Ellwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right that the European Union can play a role on soft power. However, Bosnia is a great example of the European Union failing to provide the troops or the initiative to solve a problem. It was not until America came alongindeed, until NATO came alongand the Dayton peace accord was signed that we got peace in the Balkans. That would not have happened if the situation had been left to the EU alone.
Willie Rennie: I recognise that these matters are not simple and that there are often system failures. The fact that NATO and the ESDP do not communicate effectively is one reason. We need to work together. Just because it may seem on the outside that there is duplication or overlap, that does not mean that the two systems cannot work side by side. There is blind adherence to maintaining NATO, without considering a similar European body. That is inappropriate.
In conclusion, we need to work together through the European Union and other international bodies so that we can advance the cause of Britain in a larger whole, rather than working on our own.
Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): Like my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), I have not previously spoken in a European Affairs debate. I understand that such debates take place twice a year. I was warned that it would be dangerous to speak in the debate, as I would become for ever part of a mythical group of people called the usual suspects. I was intrigued by that. I was also intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) earlier describing an additional two species called the Euro-creeps and the Euro-lags.
I am struck by the fact that on the Government Benches there are virtually no suspects present. Despite the fact that this is a fundamental debate about the future of this country, the future constitutional arrangements of the European Union and its interaction with the United Kingdom, there are no Labour Members in the Chamber other than two Back Benchers, a Parliamentary Private Secretary and a Whip, as well as the Minister for Europe. It is a pretty poor show.
As a new speaker in the debate, I ought to outline some of my background. I am genuinely pulled two ways on Europebetween my heart and my head, or between my personal life and my political life. At various times for my degree I studied the German, Czech and Turkish languages. I lived and worked in Germany for over two years. I had been to 25 of the 27 EU countries, excepting only Cyprus and Malta, before I was aged 30, both on personal and on business travel. My wife is half German and half Russian. The language of choice for us at home is German. My daughter is being brought up bilingually, as my other children will be, and she holds two EU passports.
My constituency has the second largest number of EU residents anywhere in the country after Kensington and Chelsea. From a personal point of view, I should be a total enthusiast for the European Union and everything that it stands for. However, that is not the case. Why am I opposed to the current direction of the EU? Probably because I believe that it needs fundamental change. I strongly believe that we must be in Europe and make the case for a Europe that is in our mould. We have many declared and potential allies since expansion, to whom we are not talking enough. That is especially the case with the present Government. We want a grouping of sovereign nation states able to trade freely with one another, co-operating on areas of common political interest. Change is desperately needed. According to the European Commissions own figures, by 2050 Europes share of world output will fall to only 10 per cent. The US will be on 26 per cent. at that time. That means that in just 40 years the average American will be twice as well off as the average European.
In February, I attended a speech on Europe by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) at the Movement for European Reform. The speech had a great deal to commend it. My right hon. Friend spoke about how the EU, rather than focusing on itself, gaining more powers and expanding its remit, should focus on becoming what he called the 3G Europe, concentrating on global poverty, globalisation and global warming. I would add a
fourth Gglobal terrorism. We should add to that list sovereignty and the paramountcy of Parliament in making UK law.
Much has been said today on the EU constitution, and there are real fears that the same treaty has come to us dusted off that was previously presented in 2004. Last month, I was in the audience for a speech in Potsdam by Angela Merkels right-hand man, Thomas de Maizière, the chief of the Chancellors office and the Federal Minister of Special Affairs. De Maizière was applauding the content of the EU constitution while criticising moves made more than two years ago to call it a constitution. His words were: You dont name the baby until after its born. The implication was clear: the baby was a great thing but should not have been called a constitution until after it had been ratified.
Kitty Ussher (Burnley) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman will recall that I was at the conference, sitting practically next to him, and I want to probe him on other comments made by Thomas de Maizière. Please correct me if I am wrong, but when asked, I think by the editor of the Financial Times, when it would be appropriate for Angela Merkel to hold discussions with the Leader of the Opposition on the state of Euroscepticism within the British press, Thomas de Maizière very clearly replied, Never, for as long as the Conservative party plans to leave the European Peoples party. Is not that a damning indictment on the hon. Gentlemans partys policy?
Mr. Hands: I am delighted to be given the additional minute and to talk about the role of the Members of the European Parliament. It is of interest to me that, on 7 June, Labour Members of the European Parliament voted for the motion, which stated:
Next Section | Index | Home Page |