| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification. Article 27b states:
- "Enhanced cooperation . . . shall relate to implementation of a joint action or a common position."
- "When the agreement is envisaged in order to implement a joint action or common position, the Council shall act by a qualified majority, in accordance with Article 23(2)."
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a couple of questions. A while ago, I read a book by Sir Richard Body called Europe of Many Circles. Is enhanced co-operation in line with the thesis of that book? He proposed that instead of having a Europe with the acquis communautaire, and what have you, we should have a much looser sort of Europe where people would co-operate in the things that they believed to be right for them and which benefited their
own country. Is the enhanced co-operation system progress towards that goal, or is it something quite different?My other question concerns something that is not clear to me; perhaps I am not reading the treaty properly. Once enhanced co-operation is made, does it become part of the acquis communautaire, or can people resign from it? In other words, can they co-operate for so long and then say, "We have had enough of this. It has suited our purpose; we would like to resign from this piece of enhanced co-operation"? Or, once they have made the agreement, is it for all time? I should be interested to know the answer.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As I understand it, enhanced co-operation does not become part of the acquis. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but it is difficult for me to tell him whether or not I agree with something in a book that I have not read. Perhaps I can study what he has said, and if there is anything I can usefully add, I shall write to him. I am bound to say that there are quite a few books that I have not read; although I have read one or two. I cannot comment on whether I agree with the central thesis of something that I have not had the opportunity to study.
On the question that the noble Baroness raises, where we require unanimity in setting a policy, we would have a veto. Her question relates to CFSP policies. As I understand it—I shall write to her if I am wrong—where we require unanimity in setting the policy, we would be able to exercise a veto.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: May I suggest to the Minister that she read Mr Solano's paper on common strategies, which sets out the intention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As always, the noble Baroness is a font of good advice. I shall take her advice and write to her accordingly.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the Minister clarify that the flexibility that has been sewn into the treaty with these clauses is yet again a one-way flexibility? In other words, as I understand it, if eight or more countries wish to follow the path of enhanced co-operation, they may do so. I think that I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the rest of us have to pay for it, apart from any defence implications of the enhanced co-operation.
Did the United Kingdom get anything back for the concession of allowing those eight or more member states to move towards enhanced co-operation? Did we, for instance, ask for our fish back from the common fisheries policy? Did we say to the others, "Well, you can have your enhanced co-operation if you want, but we want our fish back."? Or did we just let them have it, agree to pay for it and get nothing back in return?
Above all, is the Minister really saying that those eight can move forward to their enhanced co-operation but we cannot move backwards at all? That is a slightly rhetorical question—I imagine that is the
way because it always is with the European Union—but perhaps the Minister would be good enough to confirm it.7 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am afraid that the noble Lord and I start from such a fundamentally different premise in how we regard these issues that I am unable to answer the question of what price we made the other member states pay for something that we wanted.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, should not be under any illusion. The United Kingdom Government support enhanced co-operation. We do not support it in a half-hearted way; we do not support it in such a way as to believe that it should not be done or that somebody had better give us something back for it. That is not the nature of the United Kingdom's attitude to these issues. The premise of the noble Lord's argument in asking what we got for it, therefore, is fundamentally flawed.
However, any use of enhanced co-operation has to satisfy a series of conditions. It must be a last resort. It must involve at least eight member states. It must respect the acquis. It must not damage the single market. It must be open to all member states, including those who want to join later. Some of those conditions were, of course, in the Amsterdam treaty, but some are new provisions. We believe them to be important safeguards and that they should be supported.
I am sorry not to be able to tell the noble Lord that all sorts of splendid things came in as a rebalancing for what he clearly believes to be a deficit to the United Kingdom. No such deficit is recognised by the UK Government.
Lord Biffen: In order to spare the noble Baroness further reading, I can assure her that all the conditions she attached to enhanced co-operation would make it wholly unacceptable to Sir Richard Body.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: So the noble Baroness is saying that this is yet again one-way traffic; nothing came back our way. There is no provision in the treaty to recover any of the powers we have given to the European Union. I believe that is what the noble Baroness is saying, but I should like it on the record.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am not saying that. I do not accept the premise of the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord should not try to put words into my mouth, tempting though that may be. I am tempted sometimes to do it but I try very hard to restrain myself. The fact is that this was something the United Kingdom Government wanted and supported. There was no question of there being a price to pay.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am still a little worried about this. The enhanced co-operation must involve at least eight member states. My noble friend said that countries which decide that they no longer want to be part of the enhanced co-operation can resign from it.
If eight countries are involved in a measure of enhanced co-operation and one resigns, that will leave only seven. Does that mean that the whole of the enhanced co-operation falls?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The safeguards state that there should be at least eight member states. That is what is in the provisions. It follows, therefore, that there must be at least eight member states.
Lord Howell of Guildford: This debate has taken a rather unsatisfactory turn. I was of the clear impression that before the Nice treaty the Government were not loud in their view that they were going to say goodbye to the veto in this area and embrace qualified majority voting in relation to Article 27e and all sorts of procedural questions as in Article 23, subparagraph (3), which was also referred to in Article 27e. The noble Baroness now says that that was something they were always prepared to put aside because they see benefits for the United Kingdom in enhanced co-operation by qualified majority voting.
It may mean that I am approaching this matter from a different angle to the noble Baroness, but I am not sure that I do see such benefits and I am not sure that other Members of the Committee do either. We favour enhanced co-operation when it is flexible and is applied lightly in relation to specific issues. Indeed, the pattern of the future European Union will move further and further away from the heavy hand of uniformity and standardisation. That is inevitable and is thoroughly beneficial for the diversity of Europe which my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke was praising earlier.
But when enhanced co-operation is achieved by majority, leaving others behind, it is a much heavier concept. It implies integration and commitments in areas which may be extremely damaging to the diversity and flexibility of Europe as a whole.
I was unimpressed by the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and not at all happy that I should simply withdraw the amendment and nod through support for this proposition. Throwing away this veto is throwing away something which could have been used. Other countries bargain briskly and we can bargain in a friendly way; in a pro-European way; in a communautaire way. But this is something that should have been done less casually and with more focus on the flexibility we need for the kind of Europe that I believe the Prime Minister favoured in part of his Warsaw speech—some of it mentioned "superpowers", with which we do not agree. It is something most of us favour.
An increasing number of advocates of European Unity in applicant states undoubtedly favour a more flexible pattern for the Europe they long to join. I recently spent a weekend in Budapest with leaders from three of the major applicant states and I have to tell the noble Baroness that their constant emphasis was on flexibility and not on more qualified majority
voting or abandonment of the right, in the last resort—one never wants to see it used—to say no to a specific endeavour by another group of eight states.This is not a happy proposition and not one that I can recommend the Committee to support. Therefore I commend Amendment No. 11.
7.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 121.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page