Letter to the Chairman from Sir Peter
Marshall, KCMG CVO
THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
As someone whose submissions the Committee has
been gracious enough in the past to publish, may I offer a follow-up
thought in relation to the oral evidence you are to hear on October
10 from the Foreign Secretary?
The FCO White Paper "Active Diplomacy"
used by the Committee as a Frame of Reference for its Work as
a Whole
Press Notice no 28 of 26 May 2006 recorded your
Committee's most welcome intention to ensure that the FCO White
Paper on UK international priorities Active Diplomacy for a Changing
World (Cm 6762, March, 2006) is considered as part of the Committee's
work as a whole, and should be taken into account in the context
of other reports from the Committee. The question of the UK's
role in the European Union cannot but be of central concern in
this regard.
Drawing "red lines" is an inadequate
and atypical UK contribution to the Reform Treaty
There is unhappily a marked contrast between
the positive clarity and leadership of Active Diplomacy on the
one hand, and the lack of really effective UK participation in
the preparation of the Reform Treaty on the other. By common consent,
the UK has at least as great a contribution as any other member
country to make to the building of an EU which all of us within
it want and which the rest of the international community wants
from us. The reasons for this faith in the British input emerge
convincingly from Active Diplomacy and a number of kindred texts
which can conveniently be termed "The British Conspectus",
as well, of course, as in the actual record, not least of the
UK Presidency in the second half of 2005. Yet in the end HMG's
role in the preparation of the Treaty was effectively reduced
to a damage-limitation exercise of drawing red lines around what
were judged to be key UK interests.
"Leadership" was the Theme of the FCO
Heads of Mission Conference on 20 March
Simultaneously, "Leadership" was the
chosen theme for the gathering on 20 March 2007, of UK Heads of
Mission at the QE II Conference Centre. The theme was echoed by
many of Mrs Margaret Beckett's cabinet colleagues. But surely
one does not lead by drawing red lines. Nor can such a policy
be regarded as "active diplomacy". It is a strategy
which just leaves the field to others to get their way at your
expense. As De Gaulle once said, somewhat more graphically than
elegantly, on les aura tout nus. It cannot but seem that the British
people, and their EU partners, deserve better from HMG.
Mr Murphy's Appearance before the Committee on
12 September
The reason for this contrast is hard to fathom.
I have studied closely the transcript of Mr Jim Murphy's meeting
on 12 September with the Committee. I hope I may say that your
Questions 249 and 250 seemed to me to be of particular importance.
The answers they elicited from Mr Murphy are informative. His
answer to Q 249 picks up the theme of the UK Presidency in the
second half of 2005, especially at Hampton Court. A difference
is that two years ago the emphasis was on tackling the delivery
deficit instead of negotiating structural changes, whereas Mr
Murphy seem to see the latter as a means to the former end. If
the Reform Treaty consisted of only a handful of procedural changes,
such as more durable tenure of the chairmanship of the European
Council, that might well be the case. But there is much more in
it than that, some of it highly controversial. The Reform Treaty,
as it now stands in all its amplitude and complexity, and in the
unconvincing method chosen for its presentation to a sceptical
public, is regrettably part of the problem, not of the solution.
The answer to Q249 also implies that the issue
of how to reconnect the public and Europe is not affected by the
nature of the process adopted for approving the treaty. I do not
believe this to be true. There is inevitably a good deal of the
subjective about the views of the public on "Brussels".
At the end of the day HMG are asking the British people to take
many things on trust. If they think they are being put upon in
the matter of the Treaty, that will affect how they look at delivery.
The delivery deficit is a subjective, as well as an objective,
concept.
The answer to Q250 is hopeful that we can be
spared a return to the seemingly endless discussions of structural
and procedural matters: "with the reform treaty in place
Europe has the tools to do the job". I wish that were true.
But it is not. The Brussels institutions, as at present structured
and perceived, are far from being fit for 21st century purpose.
The EU is the world's principal under-performing asset.
Shortcomings of the Commission
The most obvious current defect in the EU is
the structure and functioning of the Commission, which the planned
future reduction in its numbers will do little to remedy. This
is a matter to which insufficient attention has been devoted.
The Treaty of Rome is a highly professional
document. The establishment of the Commission was its most imaginative
element. Thanks largely to events, and also to the shortcomings
of recent Commissioners, collectively and individually, it is
now almost a caricature of the original intention. There are a
number of reasons why the role of the Commission needed to evolve
as the years passed and the number of member countries increased.
But these do not adequately explain what has happened.
President Sarkozy's Proposal
In an address at the Elysee on August 27 to
a conclave of French Ambassadors, President Sarkozy proposed inter
alia the establishment of a group of 10 or 12 Wise Persons on
the Werner, Davignon or Westendorp models to look at the future
of Europe.
I am not aware what reaction, if any, this proposal,
has evoked around the EU. I have seen no reference to it. Yet
something of this sort is surely what is now required, although
the terms of reference should be broader than those the President
mentioned. Subsidiarity, and the record as regards competences
so far conferred on the Union, would be crucial items on its agenda.
The vital Role of the Foreign Affairs Committee
I realise that the current debate in this country
is concentrated on whether or not there should be a referendum.
I would regard it as crucial that any decision on the matter should
not be taken on an "either/or" basis: that is to say,
there should be no general assumption that holding a referendum
is somehow a substitute for the fullest parliamentary scrutiny.
It could be that 21st century circumstances will both enable and
require a mixture of representative and direct democracy in the
conduct of our affairs generally of a sort which we have not previously
seen. But this not would diminish the value of the Select Committee
system, which I am sure I am not alone in regarding as one of
the brightest stars in the Parliamentary firmament. At all events,
and especially in the case of the EU, the importance of the role
of Foreign Affairs Committee cannot but be enhanced.
In view of the postal strike, I am venturing
to submit this letter to you by e-mail and the courtesy of your
highly esteemed Committee Clerk.
Peter Marshall
6 October 2007
| 
