Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT,
PATRICK REILLY
AND ANTHONY
SMITH
19 JUNE 2007
Q160 Chairman: In other words, you
have a real problem with what the majority—the 18 countries
who have endorsed the treaty, plus three or four others who might
do so—
Margaret Beckett: Let us be quite
clear about this. The 18 countries who have endorsed the treaty
have accepted all the constitutional treaty, and they now have
to consider where they stand. I think that some of them have held
the view that all they have to do is not look and it will not
go away.
Q161 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: We know
that what comes out of the negotiations will not be called a constitution.
That is about the only thing that can be agreed. In deference
to our sensitivities, it will be called a treaty, but that is
why we have to look at the substance. We are having difficulty
with the EU trying to assess the substance and what new powers
will be in the final document.
You mentioned that the reason why a referendum
was granted before was because it would have altered the relationship
between the UK and the EU, but we have discussed many examples,
in this brief sitting, of areas where there clearly will be a
change, even if the Prime Minister gets all his red lines taken
out, as all the other qualified majority voting advances. You
mentioned the Single European Act, but there were only 12 in that;
there are 42 in the constitution, and we now know that the Prime
Minister objects to only two of them.
We have discussed having a single legal personality
for the European Union and collapsing the intergovernmental pillars,
as well as a permanent, full-time President in Brussels, who clearly
would have more powers, and a European Foreign Minister. He would
not be called a Minister, again out of deference to our concerns
about presentation, but he would have many powers to conduct foreign
policy on behalf of all the member states. Does not all that add
up to a change in the relationship between the existing Union
and the member states that justifies a referendum on exactly the
same grounds as those on which the Prime Minister gave way last
time, in 2005, when he suddenly announced one?
Margaret Beckett: Mr Heathcoat-Amory,
you keep asserting what will be in the treaty, but there are not
yet even any proposals from the German Government as to what they
envisage being in the mandate of the treaty, let alone any reaction
from the British Government to those proposals, or any negotiated
agreement. So, I am afraid that all of that is theoretical.
Q162 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: So, you
can tell us nothing? You are sitting here, two days before the
negotiations start, and you do not know whether the Minister for
Europe is going. Presumably, you are going; can you not tell us
something about it? There have been feverish negotiations in Europe
about this.
Mr Keetch: Discussions, not negotiations.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Discussions, as you
delicately put it.
Margaret Beckett: I am sorry,
but this is a total misunderstanding. There have not been feverish
negotiations and discussions in Europe; I wish that there had,
but there have not. To put it bluntly, most of our colleagues
have been in denial and have been saying things like, "Oh,
well, people signed up to this in 2004, so therefore you must
all agree with it now." That is not a basis for negotiation
or discussion if we are not going to have a constitutional treaty.
So it is no good to keep going on about how there have been all
these negotiations. There have not. It might be a great pity,
but there have not.
I understand completely; I am sure that the
Committee imagined, as did we probably, that we would have had
a draft document weeks ago, and that there would have been a lot
of discussion and argy-bargy and all those kinds of things. You
as a Committee did not want to be left out of it. I understand
and sympathise. I have not seen the draft document either—nobody
has. It has not been produced—well, until five minutes ago
perhaps.
Q163 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Well, Foreign
Secretary, what have the sherpas been doing?
Margaret Beckett: There are no
sherpas.
Q164 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: May I ask
you the question, please? In January, in a parliamentary answer
to the House, the Prime Minister said that he had appointed Kim
Darroch and Nicola Brewer to prepare the ground for these very
important negotiations, which I remind you are about not just
a constitution for Europe, but for this country. We do not have
a written constitution, so it would affect the powers of this
House, which is why we are all so interested. Do you mean to say
that those two very senior officials have been doing nothing since
January and have not been reporting back? Are you saying that
the letter that was sent around—that questionnaire—from
Mrs. Merkel, suggesting that it all go through except for changing
a few of the presentational titles, is now mouldering away in
the bottom drawer in the Foreign Office? We are not all innocent
here. We have all been engaged in some way in foreign affairs
in the past and know perfectly well that much discussion has been
taking place. We want you to tell us what the British position
might be because it is all going to happen this week.
Margaret Beckett: I am sure that
this is all particularly familiar to Mr Younger-Ross, because
it is very much what the European Scrutiny Committee said. I was
nit-picking perhaps when I said that there are no sherpas. There
are no people called sherpas—the people whom normally you
would call sherpas are called focal points. Don't ask me why.
As I explained, the focal points have met twice only—in
May. So yes, you are absolutely right Mr Heathcoat-Amory: when
we were asked to identify two people, we assumed that there would
be a sustained process of dialogue and exchange together with
potential draft documents and so on, but that has not happened.
It is not that something is being withheld from you; in fact we
are being completely frank. The process has not evolved in the
way in which I think that most people imagined that it would when
we were asked to appoint the two people. Incidentally, Nicola
Brewer has left and it is now Kim Darroch and Shan Morgan. So
it is the same people.
Q165 Chairman: We had better move
on to some other areas in a moment, but before we move away from
the constitutional treaty, I would like to ask one more question.
Would an agreement on Sunday involve a formal statement that the
constitutional treaty is withdrawn, is dead, and is no more—to
coin a phrase? Otherwise we will be in a situation in which 18
countries have ratified, but in which also we will be about to
have an IGC under the Portuguese presidency with some ambiguity
about the basis of that conference.
Margaret Beckett: No discussion
of that has taken place. I do not know. No one knows the answer
to your question. If you are asking me for my political judgment,
I think that it would be very reluctant to make such a statement,
because there are a number of member states that have ratified
and remain very attached to the content of the treaty because
it is a matter of some sensitivity in their countries and with
their electorate. However, given that the constitutional treaty
has been rejected by the electorates of two member states, it
cannot come back in its current form unless those member states,
along with others, are prepared to bring it back in its previous
form. But I see no prospect of that happening.
Q166 Andrew Mackinlay: The Chairman's
view, and ours, is that, on Monday, states that are enthusiasts
for the constitution—we have them in mind—will deem
that they have ratified what emerges on Monday. In other words,
it will fit in with their concept of the constitution. That would
be abhorrent—not to me—but it would be inconsistent
with the Prime Minister's view. If Ireland, for instance, said,
"Well, what has emerged from Monday are points 3, 4, 5 and
7 of the constitution, so we have already had them endorsed by
our electorate, and so we do not need to go to them again."
In other words, by stealth you have the constitution.
Margaret Beckett: The Irish Government
made it very plain that they have to have a referendum.
Q167 Andrew Mackinlay: I used the
term earlier about being bounced, but the Prime Minister and you
can go along this weekend and say, "We have heard this, but
we are simply not prepared to sign up to it." The view is
that everything has to be done. The record of the EEC is that
there has hardly ever been a breakdown—there have been one
or two. However, if you give evidence to the Committee saying,
"As Foreign Secretary, I am so frustrated that there have
been no discussions," and something is published as you are
speaking, surely in any organisation, whether the Scouts or the
European Union, you have to say, "I am not prepared to put
up with this; you will have to come back another day." Why
do we have to agree all this over this weekend? There is no logical
reason. The world will not collapse if it is deferred and kicked
into touch. It would discipline the European Union if the United
Kingdom takes that stance this weekend and on Monday.
Margaret Beckett: It remains to
be seen what will happen this weekend. The one thing on which
we have not touched that it would be worth bearing in mind goes
back, in a sense, to the Hampton Court summit. There is a recognition,
which is perhaps slightly grudging on the part of some, that the
citizens of the European Union are not as excited as some people
think that they should be about such technical discussions and
concentration on legislative documents and things of that kind.
A lot of people—maybe everybody—will
feel that if the matter can be dealt with this weekend, and followed
by a short and effective IGC to develop the treaty, and if we
can put it behind us so that the European Union can continue to
concentrate on the matters that are of much more day-to-day relevance
to the citizens of the European Union, everybody would think that
that was a good thing. Whether it can be done is another matter.
Q168 Sandra Osborne: One of the main
aims of the constitution was to bring the EU closer to the people.
Do you agree that if a referendum had been held in the UK, it
is highly unlikely that the British people would have said yes?
I would go further than what you have just said and say that many
of the public are not only not enamoured with the process, but
they are not particularly enamoured with the European Union—they
are certainly no closer to it than they were before. How are they
to be brought closer to the EU, and do you not think, given that
there might be a lack of trust in any amended treaty that comes
forward, that the Government will have to have a referendum to
bring people along with the idea rather than thinking that you
can just put it behind you and move on to the day-to-day issues,
as you say? Is there not a public credibility issue?
Margaret Beckett: There are two
or three things wrapped up in that. First, I utterly reject the
notion that because we now have a Labour Government we should
be required to have referendums in circumstances where previous
Conservative Governments had no intention of holding them and
never did hold them. The only national referendum we have ever
had was in 1972, when we joined the European Union. I refuse to
accept that— [Interruption.] It was 1975, not 1972.
You are quite right. We joined without either a referendum or
a general election, which had been the undertaking of the then
Conservative Government. We had the only national referendum we
have ever had in 1975. I reject the notion that somehow we have
to be judged by a different standard. My Italian colleague assures
me that the constitution is extremely popular with the people
of Italy and that it is one of the things that makes them feel
closer to the European Union. But I accept your judgment, Ms Osborne,
that that might not be the case in the United Kingdom.
You say that people will think that there is
more in this than the Government accept or admit, but that is
because they have been assiduously told that for months and they
will continue to be told that. We all know that, but I remain
of the view that it is wiser to make the judgment when we see
the proposed content of the treaty. Then we can come to a judgment.
Chairman: Let us move on to some other
areas, please. [Interruption.] One final question on this
area, and then we are going to move on.
Q169 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Foreign
Secretary, you said that no meaningful discussions have been taking
place at Foreign Office level. But they have clearly been taking
place at prime ministerial level, because we have the report of
a meeting that took place between the Prime Minister and the Dutch
Prime Minister on 16 April. Clearly, negotiations have been taking
place somewhere else. Both of them make the point that a Europe
of 27 needs different rules from a Europe of 15, but do you agree
that there has been no slowdown in the volume of legislation coming
out of Brussels in recent years after the successive enlargements?
Do you see a case for majority voting to speed up the decision-making
process, when it is not clear—to me anyway—that what
Europe really lacks is legislation and regulation?
Margaret Beckett: Well, it depends
on the circumstances. One area in which the European Union is
popular, even with the people of the United Kingdom, is environmental
policy. There are many people who feel that moving forward on
standards is not only always desirable in itself, but that—this
was certainly the basis of the decision made at the March Council—if
we do so, there could be a real competitive advantage to the European
Union as a whole if we make ourselves the first low carbon economy.
I do not accept that there are no areas where there might not
be benefit in moving forward, or that there might not be benefit
in moving forward on the issue of qualified majority voting.
You have to forgive me, I have completely forgotten
the beginning of your question.
Q170 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I just made
the point that negotiations have been taking place, but clearly
not with you.
Margaret Beckett: I am sorry,
but I do not accept the characterisation that they are negotiations.
The Dutch Prime Minister is not in a position to deliver agreement
to our Prime Minister on what should be in the treaty. All they
can do is exchange ideas about his main concerns, our main concerns,
and whether we might be in the same place. As I said to the Committee
before, however, as far as I can make out, no one member state
is in the identical place to any other member state at this moment
in time.
Chairman: We must move on. Paul Keetch,
on enlargement.
Q171 Mr Keetch: The chairman is encouraging
us to move on, so I will accept his encouragement. May I talk
about enlargement, Foreign Secretary? I appreciate that it is
not a huge issue of the German presidency, but it is important
that we look at a number of areas. I shall start with Serbia.
Are there any indications that the EU process
might be so sufficient as to persuade Belgrade to support the
Ahtisaari plan for Kosovo? Are we moving down that line? Has it
been successful, and is Belgrade now delivering on some of the
issues that we would like it to deliver on, so that we can move
forward on enlargement towards that country?
Margaret Beckett: The test that
you have set is not a test that can be met. It is common ground
among colleagues that probably no Serbian politician could say,
"Yes, I accept the Ahtisaari plan." However, what did
and does concern the European Union is whether there are things
that Serbia can do to show that they are moving forward and, for
example, arresting some of the prisoners. There has been, as you
probably know, strong resistance in the General Affairs Council
to opening negotiations with Serbia about the stabilisation and
association agreement lacking such movement. However, Serbia has
now moved. We welcome that very much, which is why Commissioner
Rehn announced a few days ago that the negotiations can recommence.
He has also made it plain—he said this explicitly at the
Council yesterday—that such negotiations cannot be concluded
until Serbia has fully complied with the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
We all welcome the moves that Serbia has made.
We are all deeply relieved that they have meant that we can begin
to open the negotiations, because there is common ground on the
fact that everybody wants to hold open to Serbia the prospect
of membership of the European Union. We want to hold open that
door. It was difficult to do so without any moves on the side
of the European Union, yet there was strong resistance in the
Council, of which we were part, to moving towards those negotiations
if Serbia was not prepared to make any moves to co-operate with
the international court. We have seen some encouraging steps in
the right direction, so those negotiations will commence. I welcome
that, as I think everybody does.
Q172 Mr Illsley: As you are aware,
there have recently been significant political conflicts in Turkey,
which have shown the fragility of the Turkish democracy of the
moment. Do you consider that the problems in Turkey are a reason
for the UK to step up its commitment towards Turkey's EU membership
or to take a step backwards from that commitment and proceed with
a certain amount of caution?
Margaret Beckett: I certainly
do not take the view that we should now take a step backwards,
because although I accept that Turkey has not made as much progress
as people would like and that recent events have caused some anxiety,
it is our judgment and understanding that it is primarily the
prospect—in the longer term, of course—of membership
of the European Union that has stimulated the reforms that have
taken place in Turkey. If we were now to step back, we would put
a dampener on the process of reform. Part of what lies behind
your question is the wish to see a greater process of reform,
and we would not be likely to get that by stepping back. As to
whether we can step up our engagement, we are already pretty heavily
engaged, to be honest.
Q173 Mr Illsley: How do you see the
election of President Sarkozy playing on this issue? I know that
he has said that he will leave the issue of Turkey aside for the
moment, but he has obviously stated his opposition to its membership.
Do you see that bringing him into conflict with ourselves? Do
you see his election again putting a brake on Turkey's accession?
Margaret Beckett: He has indicated
that he does not intend to obstruct the continuing process of
negotiation and discussion, which, as we all know, is likely to
go on for a substantial period of years—that is what happens
with accession negotiations. Obviously, he has concerns, which
he has expressed strongly in the past, but I hope that, over time,
in discussion with other European Union colleagues, he will appreciate
the exact point that I put to you about the potential advantages
for Turkey.
I cannot recall whether I have said this to
this Committee before, and if I have done so, I apologise for
repeating myself. We take the view that right across the Muslim
world people are looking to see whether we treat Turkey as fairly
as we treat any other applicant to the European Union. In addition,
a large number of people in the Muslim world are potential reformers,
or they would like to be reformers in their own country. Such
people are looking to see whether there is anything that they
can learn from the way in which Turkey is reforming, from the
difficulties that it is experiencing and from the benefits, advantages
and so on. This could be really important in bringing about the
kind of change that we would like to see happening a lot more
widely than merely in Turkey. I suspect that that is an argument
with which President Sarkozy has not been engaged.
Q174 Mr Illsley: Finally, has the
UK given any thought to his proposal for a Mediterranean union?
Margaret Beckett: We are giving
thought to it.
Chairman: We will come back to that at
some point.
Q175 Mr Hamilton: May I just pick
up on something that Mr Illsley said? I agree with everything
that you have just said, Foreign Secretary, about the need for
Turkey to be part of the European Union. Many of us strongly support
the Government's policy on this. However, we have a problem, do
we not, because, essential as I and many of us believe it is that
Turkey should join the European Union and make the progress towards
accession, we have a block. That block is the promise that former
President Chirac made on a referendum in France and the fact that
the Austrians—we have just returned from Vienna—are
implacably opposed to Turkey becoming part of Europe, as we know
they have been for 100s of years, and are going to hold a referendum.
We cannot tell what is going to happen in five or 10 years, but
the likely outcome now is that both those countries will oppose
Turkey's accession to the European Union. How are we going to
get round that one and tell the Turks that it is worth carrying
on with the negotiations?
Margaret Beckett: I am well aware
that the Government of Austria have strong reservations about
this, but they had strong reservations about continuing the negotiations
with Turkey. They had anxieties and concerns, but in the end they
were swayed by the kind of views that I have just expressed to
Mr Illsley and by the view of the Council as a whole. Of course
I accept that there are concerns, but as I said a moment ago,
we are really quite a long way from the point of decision on this,
and a lot of things can happen.
Q176 Mr Hamilton: May I move us on
to the policies of the European Union outside the Union? I want
to draw attention to an area that is causing a great deal of anxiety,
not just for us, but for the European Union and its critical role,
namely the Middle East. We now have effectively two Palestinian
Governments. Hamas always said, "Well, we were democratically
elected", yet by force, and with the most dreadful brutality,
it has taken the whole of Gaza. We now have a temporary Government
under the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is someone
whom the west trusts a great deal, whom President Abbas has just
appointed.
Yet in spite of what has happened in Gaza and
the dreadful split, there are two points that I want to make.
First, there are many ordinary people crammed into the Gaza strip
who are starving, and have no energy and no water supply. What
are we going to do to ensure that there is not a humanitarian
crisis? The EU has to do something about that. I know that we
have the temporary international mechanism and that we are trying
to support the democratic side of the Palestinian Authority, but
there is a dreadful crisis looming. I hope that we are going to
do something. Can you reassure us that the European Union has
an emergency plan?
Margaret Beckett: Obviously we
discussed this yesterday, and I am sure that the Committee will
be interested to see the conclusions that the Council reached,
among which is a very clear statement that the EU will do its
utmost to ensure the provision of emergency and humanitarian assistance
to the population of Gaza, whom it will not abandon. Unimpeded
access to humanitarian aid deliveries must be guaranteed. Not
only did we have that discussion, in which there was unanimous
concern about the potential humanitarian crisis in Gaza—perhaps
not even potential—but, as it happens, we had already agreed
to have discussions with the Israeli Foreign Minister, who also
expressed concern about the humanitarian situation.
We will of course be looking to restore direct
links, funding and so on to the new Palestinian Government as
speedily as that can be achieved. However, we are also very mindful
of the situation in Gaza. Again, that is a shared concern. We
shall be doing everything that we can to consider how we address
it—to a certain extent through the TIM, but also more widely.
We have also urged the Israeli Government to release revenues,
which as you know they have been withholding.
Q177 Mr Hamilton: You have said that
we have urged them to release those revenues, but are we putting
further pressure on the Israeli Government? It seems to me that
they will be quite concerned, to say the least, about the fact
that Gaza is now effectively in the control of the military wing
of Hamas and about the effect that that is likely to have on Israeli
security. Clearly there is going to be a problem, so has the EU
put enough pressure on the Israeli Government, at the same time
as reassuring them that we are concerned about Israel's security?
Margaret Beckett: Yes we have,
and indeed in the past we have. Yesterday, we were prepared to
put pressure on, but actually the strong indication was that there
was no need.
Q178 Mr Hamilton: Good. I have a
further question on that. One of the problems with such a situation,
which has involved the most dreadful internecine fighting we have
seen among Palestinians for a long time and a terrible loss of
life, is that, inevitably, certain nations in the area will just
blame Israel. I turned the radio on the other day and I think
someone in Damascus was saying, "Actually, this is all Israel's
fault." Are the European Union or the British Government
going to do anything to tell the Arab world that although we must
solve the problem of the conflict in the Middle East between Israel
and the Palestinians—the wider conflict and the issue of
recognition—what has happened cannot be laid at the door
of Israel directly? It would be tragic if it became the general
view that the fact that Palestinians are killing each other, which
is a terrible tragedy, is all Israel's fault. It is not Israel's
fault, but Israel can do a lot to help.
Margaret Beckett: There will undoubtedly
be people who take that view and who it suits to continue to proclaim
that. If we can make progress on some of the concrete steps that
now need to be taken—release of revenues, tackling the humanitarian
crisis and things of that kind—for those who are prepared
to entertain an answer other than just this is all Israel's fault,
an atmosphere will be created in which it is possible to judge
that more players are actually involved than simply the Government
of Israel. Although I share your view that the conflict in Palestine
was tragic, I also take the view that it was not necessary.
Q179 Mr Hamilton: Finally, the EU
is one of the Quartet. Is the road map dead?
Margaret Beckett: No, not necessarily.
|
