Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT,
PATRICK REILLY
AND ANTHONY
SMITH
19 JUNE 2007
Q140 Mr Horam: Therefore, may I ask
you to define what you mean by the constitutional aspects of a
treaty? For example, are you saying that a significant transfer
of power from a nation state, such as the UK, to the European
Union would constitute a constitutional change, as opposed to
changes that might increase the efficiency of the working of the
European Union?
Margaret Beckett: Those are terms
that one would have to define. I simply say that—
Q141 Mr Horam: I am trying to define
them.
Margaret Beckett: A treaty that
substituted or replaced existing treaties, was explicitly defined
as a constitution, and contained symbolic things such as the flag,
the anthem and so on, would clearly be and would have been intended
to be a constitution to replace existing treaties and roll them
into one document. That is not something that we envisage.
Q142 Mr Horam: But we must get away
from general statements to content at some stage and, as I understand
it, the sort of things that the UK would be prepared to accept
would be measures that improved the efficiency of the working
of the European Union—for example, not having two Foreign
Secretaries, which is what it has at the moment in practice. Do
you agree?
Margaret Beckett: I certainly
understand the criticism of having that duplication of roles—an
External Affairs Commissioner and a high representative.
Q143 Mr Horam: Right, and returning
to the point that Gisela Stuart made, can you separate things
that are concerned with the efficiency of working of the European
Union, such as having one Foreign Secretary rather than two, from,
for example, having a single legal personality and the ability
to make treaties? Are they separable?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I would
have thought they probably are, but we shall see what set of proposals
the German Government put forward.
Q144 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The Prime
Minister yesterday set out four red lines—that is, issues
that he will not accept under any circumstances. But the total
European constitution—I have a copy here—runs to 511
pages. If we generously suppose that the red lines take up about
11 pages, that still leaves 500 pages of the constitution. Are
you willing to accept those remaining 500 pages?
Margaret Beckett: I should be
astonished, Mr Heathcoat-Amory, if any treaty proposal that emerges
from this weekend's discussion runs to anywhere near 500 pages.
We have made it very clear that we do not accept that the constitutional
treaty should be placed before the British people any more than
the French and the Dutch Governments accept that it should be
placed afresh before their peoples.
Q145 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can you
then tell us what in the 500 pages, apart from the four red lines,
you wish to see come out or think will come out? There are some
very controversial measures in there that the British Government
did not want in the constitution—I know that, because I
was on the Convention at the time. They include, for instance,
the collapse of the intergovernmental pillars, the creation of
a single legal personality that can operate as a state on the
world stage, the energy chapter, which would give the EU new powers
over the energy market and the supply of energy, and the co-ordination
of economic and employment policies by the Union. The Prime Minister
is, by implication, accepting all that, and is saying that he
simply wants to set out his four red lines. Is that your position?
Margaret Beckett: I do not think
that the Prime Minister would accept that by setting out the red
lines he is accepting all the other 400 and however many pages
there are of the constitutional treaty.
Q146 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Well, tell
us what you are seeking to take out.
Margaret Beckett: I am not conducting
the negotiations here, I am afraid, Mr Heathcoat-Amory.
Q147 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: You are
not negotiating with me, but you might share with us your other
concerns about the constitutional treaty.
Margaret Beckett: I simply say
that what we are looking for is an amending treaty, which we believe
could usefully clarify and tighten up the rule book of the European
Union, to help it work more effectively in a community of 27.
Q148 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can I press
you on something else specific? One of the red lines is about
the move to qualified majority voting. The Prime Minister said
that he would not accept it for tax and the benefits system, but
there are at least 42 areas where we have a veto that are switched
to majority voting in the European constitution. Again, are you
accepting that in those 38 areas you will accept that switch to
majority voting? That would of course be a very big extension
of the powers of European Union and would restrict the ability
of a British Government or Parliament to object to future legal
measures from the EU.
Margaret Beckett: I would say
two things about that, Mr Heathcoat-Amory. No, I am not putting
forward a position that says that we accept everything else. What
I would simply say is that qualified majority voting was, of course,
accepted in the Single European Act, which I think was—
Patrick Reilly: 1986.
Margaret Beckett: 1986. It was
then, under Lady Thatcher, that the United Kingdom gave up its
veto. It did so because it was believed by the Government of the
day—in my view very sensibly—that there were occasions
on which it would be to the British people's national advantage
to be able to achieve a decision without one member state being
able to veto it. That is when the decision was made, in an amending
treaty on which we did not have a referendum. Similarly, in the
Maastricht treaty qualified majority voting was either extended
or instigated in something of the order of 30 areas. Again, for
the avoidance of doubt, that was done without it being conceded
that that required a referendum.
So without in any way suggesting that we are
happy with everything that has been proposed outside the areas
of social security and so on, we should look at what, in the package
that is proposed, we judge to be in the national interest of the
United Kingdom. But since I do not know what is going to be in
the package that is proposed, there is not much more that I can
say about that.
Q149 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: But there
has been a massive retreat in your position. I have with me a
copy of the White Paper that the Government published in September
2003, before the last intergovernmental conference. In it, there
were seven areas on which the Government would "insist"—the
paper uses that term—that unanimity should remain. Only
two of them are tax and social security, so you are now saying
that you will accept a switch to qualified majority voting in
the other areas where you previously insisted that there was no
question of doing so, so there has been, as usual, an enormous—
Margaret Beckett: I am not saying—
Q150 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: May I finish
the question? As usual, there has been an enormous change. I specifically
want to ask you about criminal justice matters.
Margaret Beckett: I would call
your comments an assertion, not a question.
Q151 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Excuse me,
but I want to ask you a question, if I may, Foreign Secretary.
Margaret Beckett: Please do.
Q152 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Why are
you now accepting majority voting on criminal justice matters
which, up until now, had been the preserve of national Parliaments
answerable to national electorates? The coercive power of the
state is now apparently to be transferred from domestic Parliaments
to the European Union, where it is to be decided by majority voting.
Are you accepting that?
Margaret Beckett: If I may say
so, Mr Heathcoat-Amory, what you put to me, until the very end,
was not a question but a series of assertions that I do not accept.
I point out to you that the Prime Minister also said that we will
not allow ourselves to be overruled on our common law system or
on our police and judicial process. I accept that there is a legitimate
intellectual argument, if you like—we have had this exchange
across the Floor of the House with the shadow Foreign Secretary
on occasion—that there are some areas where cross-border
co-operation can be beneficial. Terrorism and organised crime
are areas where greater co-operation across international borders
may well have benefits. We certainly benefited in July 2005 or
thereabouts from the creation of a European arrest warrant. I
would not automatically set my face against any single thing that
looked as if it would be helpful in securing the goals that the
British people would set for effective security and effective
tackling of criminal activity. Having said that, that is quite
a different matter from saying, as you did, that we are prepared
to resile from our position.
Q153 Richard Younger-Ross: Foreign
Secretary, you seem to be unable to tell us what it is that would
mean that we would go to a referendum this time. You have gone
all the way around the garden on the issue. What in the original
treaty made you decide that you wanted a referendum, and what
changed?
Margaret Beckett: I think that
we have explained that many times. It was the fact that the document
was a constitution, that it was a replacement for all the treaties
of the European Union, and that it contained some symbolic gestures
that were very important to several member states—the flag
and anthem, all that kind of thing—and the belief that the
package as a whole perhaps represented quite a transfer of responsibilities.
But that package is no longer before us.
This is not in any way a criticism of anybody
in the Committee but, in my judgment, one of the things that has
been bedevilling the process of discussion, exchange and potential
dialogue—but not negotiation—is that there are too
many people who are still totally focussed on what was in the
constitutional treaty and, in some cases, on their desire to preserve
it in essence. They are reluctant to accept that the French and
Dutch referendums meant that that constitutional treaty will not
return.
Q154 Ms Stuart: Foreign Secretary,
I am slightly puzzled, because when I attended the negotiations
in Germany a few weeks ago, it was quite clear that, for most
of the mainland Europeans, the question was how to protect as
much as possible of the constitutional treaty, and what they needed
to slice off to make it acceptable—in essence, slice off
the wallpaper. I think that we both know that whether Europe has
a flag and an anthem legally makes not the blindest bit of difference.
We seem to be saying, "It's not the same beast," whereas
the rest of them are quite clear and open that it is a question
of, "How much do we need to take off to make it acceptable
to the Brits?" They are looking at it so differently, and
there are 26 of them and only one of us.
Margaret Beckett: I am sorry;
broadly speaking there is something in what you say but the notion
that there are 26 of them and that is what they all want, and
we are the only people who do not, is, I fear, not correct. There
is indeed a large core group of member states, particularly those
that have ratified the treaty, that perfectly understandably and
sensibly do not really want to have to go back to their Parliaments,
or in the case of the Spanish and Luxembourg Governments to their
electorates, and say, "Actually, maybe we're not going to
do this any more in quite this way." It is perfectly understandable
that that is their view and that their approach has been, "This
is really what we wanted to do, so can we save as much of it as
possible?" It is perfectly sensible that that is their approach.
Equally the French, the Dutch, we and other
member states have been saying that the constitutional treaty
is not going to return. We are not starting from the same place.
We are starting by suggesting that, given that we are no longer
going to have a constitutional treaty, we should consider an amending
treaty. We start from a different place. You are absolutely right
that there has been a reluctance to start from that place, which
is why, as the German presidency report said at the end last week,
the case remains that a lot of member states would like to carry
on as much of the treaty as possible whereas other member states
do not share that view. That remains exactly where we are.
Q155 Mr Illsley: On the document
to which my colleague just alluded, the completed constitution,
is the case not that had the UK envisaged that it would be given
so much more importance by other countries, we would have opposed
it much more strenuously during its formative period? Is it not
a fact that a lot of countries have given far more weight to the
document as a constitution than we ever did? I seem to recall
some of us using the phrase "a tidying-up exercise"
to describe the document's bringing together all the separate
treaties. Is not part of the problem the idea that has been given
that it was an over-arching constitution that we never wanted?
Margaret Beckett: That is a very
strong and valid point. UK negotiators had not envisaged, when
the negotiations and then the discussions commenced, such iconic
status being placed on the document as has been placed on it by
a number of member state colleagues. But hindsight is a wonderful
thing.
Q156 Mr Keetch: The problem with
Mr Illsley's suggestion is that the actual command document placed
before Parliament describes it as a "treaty establishing
a constitution for Europe". It might have started out as
a tidying-up exercise, but it ended up as a constitution. It is
a bit like a duck, isn't it? If it quacks like a duck, walks like
a duck and has feathers, it is probably a duck. We are trying
to understand whether you are going to come back with a constitution
or an amending treaty.
You are saying that you will not cross the Prime
Minister's four red lines, and we will therefore not have a referendum.
In answer to Sir John, you said that you do not envisage there
being a circumstance in which you would come back with something
that required a referendum, but you are not ruling a referendum
out. I will ask you a very simple question: if one other nation
state comes back from Brussels at the weekend and feels that what
it has, whether it is called an amending treaty, a constitution
or a duck, should be put to its people in a referendum, will you
allow the British people to have that same say?
Margaret Beckett: I can answer
that question readily, Mr Keetch. One member state is bound to
come back and say that it will have a referendum, because the
Irish have a constitutional requirement.
Q157 Mr Keetch: And the Portuguese?
Margaret Beckett: So no matter
what happens, the Irish will have a referendum. The Portuguese
have not given an indication. They believe that they may—
Richard Younger-Ross: They have, Foreign
Secretary.
Q158 Chairman: May I ask you to clarify
something? You have talked about the four red lines, but other
areas that do not appear on the lists of red lines are reported
to have caused a tough exchange at your meeting on Sunday. Are
there other areas, such as external affairs work and the so-called
ambassadors of the European Union—our Committee was critical
of that concept, last year—that are red lines, but are not
listed as such?
Margaret Beckett: With the red
lines, we have the phraseology and we will insist on maintaining
our ability to conduct our own independent foreign and defence
policy. Obviously, foreign and defence policy is an area for discussion.
May I say, do not believe everything that you read in the papers
about a frosty atmosphere.
Q159 Chairman: I never do, but some
things are interesting.
Margaret Beckett: Certainly, that
area—what is now in the proposals for the common foreign
and security policy—is something that we want to look at.
| 
