|
| |
Notes for Speech on Developments in the EU.
21st June 2005
Opening Speech on A Government motion by Lord Howell of Guildford, Deputy Leader
of the Opposition and Spokesman on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Not since 1945 has Britain been so favourably placed to influence the future
shape of Europe.
Today I am not going to dwell on the rebate row and diversion (although the
British position was staggeringly ill-prepared and seems to have been inspired
more by Last Minute dot com than by serious policy work and insights).
Nor am I going to dwell on the Anglo-Saxon model, since I believe that the
differences of approach are at least somewhat exaggerated by the fevered model
obsessions of economists, as Lord Kerr implied yesterday. Anyway the concept of
the UK as a low regulation, low tax, competitive system is rapidly being eroded
as we sink here into a mire of new regulations and higher taxes.
I will not even dwell on the failed Constitution, which has so obviously
capsized, except to say that some of us feel real anger that three years (not to
mention forests of paper) have been wasted on this flawed project and one
wonders now why we should heed those commentators – and indeed the PM himself -
who until last week were telling us that the Constitution was ‘good for Britain
and good for Europe’, when the whole attempt has obviously done so much harm –
and has ended up NOT bringing The Union closer to the people, as the Laaken
declaration demanded, but further away from them than ever.
No , ML, we’ll let the media have their day on these issues. This is not a time
for prolonging divisions or trading insults, although some of us have had to
bear our share of those –especially the negative vituperation from the party
sitting on my right... For those of us who genuinely want to see Europe
strengthened and effective in this new world this is a colossal opportunity for
ALL of us . It is time for a new vision and a new and different kind of Treaty.
This is the moment, as never before for creative leadership and for setting out
WHY a new direction for the EU is essential AND WHY IT IS NOW POSSIBLE.
Outdated EU thinking has been fatally holding back Europe’s economic development
while Asia races ahead and America, although precariously placed, does the same.
We should therefore proceed on the basis of the following sixteen points. (which
I hope have more luck than President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points!)
1. Obviously there now has to be a fresh IGC and a new treaty which accommodates
enlargement and improves on the Nice Treaty (which was itself full of faults).
We need a set of rules which genuinely simplifies EU procedures and organisation
as the Constitution did not. It should NOT be called a Constitution – a name
which utterly misleads and confuses.
The need is for new Club rules which ease further enlargement,
for instance for Bulgaria and Romania , and make it possible to embrace
dynamic Turkey instead of freezing out that remarkable nation, as the present
mood seems to imply .
2. The new treaty must restore and confirm inter-governmentalism for large areas
of Union activity t give member states room to breathe – for example, foreign
and security policy, judicial trans-national c-operation – which is anyway
growing ; social policy – which is far more sensitive and closer to people when
conducted nationally ; the bulk of farm support; all fiscal and – for those not
trapped n the Eurozone – monetary issues – and all areas where the EU fails to
add real effectiveness and convenience.
As the OECD has recently pointed out the EU now represents ‘ a chronic pattern
of divergent activity’. Those who want it to stay together will recognise this
situation.
And as former Commissioner Bolkerstein has urged that the Charter of Fundamental
Rights should be scrapped. It is unnecessary, full of potential friction and
vapid rhetoric.
3. The Conservative approach will anchor national parliaments at the heart of
the EU law-making and decision-making process. The defunct Constitution Protocol
talked of involving national parliaments but giving the final say so on the
suitability new powers back to the Centre. That was called the Yellow Card. We
say there should be a Red Card. If a group of national Parliaments object to new
or existing legislation it should be withdrawn or repealed. This is essential if
the EU is to decentralise.
4. The EU Commission should lose its absolute monopoly right of initiative for
new legislation and share it with member states.
5. The idea of a five year Council Presidency (2 x 2and a half years) should be
withdrawn and replaced not by a six month but by a one year rotating Presidency,
giving the small countries a full opportunity to be involved.
6. Speaking of the smaller states, especially the new entrants, we should adhere
to the principle of a more equal Europe in which smaller nations have more say
and gain more respect for their views and freedom from bullying by the bigger
states. That always used to be Britain’s stance, to protect the smaller states.
It is frankly appalling that the PM has manoeuvred himself on to the wrong side
in this respect .
7. Arrangements must be made within a revived EU to allow for bilateral or
multi-lateral or individual positions to be taken – although within the terms of
the Treaties. The concept of a Europe of different directions should be welcomed
as the realisation of a flexible Europe in the network age – a genuine
partnership of interdependent nations in a community which values differences as
strengths and not as weaknesses The Commission and the ECJ must be encouraged to
understand that these are the new imperatives, as against the old hierarchical
and over-centralised system.
8. The existence of separate groupings in no way validates the concept of
two-speed Europe. The implication that there is a single integration goal for
the nations of Europe, at which all will eventually arrive, must be firmly
rejected. Anyway it is the case that many of Europe’s most dynamic economies are
on the outer circuit . The core, if it is formed, will be a very slow one
indeed.
9. The powers of the central institutions must be much more clearly
circumscribed and the acquis communitaire must be systematically combed through
and heavily reduced in line with modern circumstances.
10. The Treaty-embodied laws of the Union will of course in many cases take
precedence, but this must be adjudged on a case basis, as hitherto, and there
WILL AND SHOULD BE exceptions (as in the case of German Constitutional Law)
.This is quite different from trying to enshrine the supremacy of Union Laws in
a higher legal constitution – and the ECJ, I say again, must be impartial in
these matters.
11. The Common Fisheries Policy has failed. It should have no place in a new
Treaty of Europe. As for the CAP, obviously further major reform must now be
instigated. It is oddly M.Chirac who has now well and truly re-opened this
matter. Some of your Lordships yesterday were saying this would all take a long
time. But as Bns Symons reminded us yesterday , with her usual acumen, the WTO
moment of truth is coming up fast at the end of the year and urgent decisions
are required before then.
12. Reinstatement of national democratic control over an extensive range of
competences is necessary to halt competence creep and enthrone the principle
that democracy occurs in nation states. The European Parliament must scrutinise
the Commission but it cannot connect to the thread of democracy which runs up
from the grassroots via national legislatures. Greater powers for the EP are NOT
the answer to the so-called democratic deficit.
13. The practice of trans-national co-operation at informal and NGO levels
(between the professions etc) should be vastly encouraged.
14. Defence and Foreign Affairs co-operation should be defined in practical and
organisational terms. There should be room for ad-hoc coalitions, pan-European
concerted moves where desirable and task-specific, intensified compatibility of
regional defence equipment, but plenty of space for wider coalitions than the
CFSP can hope to mobilise, especially when managing affairs with the great
superpower-America, which needs real friends and partners ,not querulous rivals
.
We should reject absolutely the language and instruments of superbloc or
superpower rivalry as being completely out of touch with the needs of the
network world. There is no point in trying to rescue the CFSP. It is, as
Mr.Bolkestein also points out, an illusion – and one which fails notably to
protect or promote our interests. It is certainly a weak and inadequate
‘partner’ in the trans-Atlantic relationship.
15. New forms of regular accountability to national parliaments certainly need
to be developed. One idea is that a senior Minister should head UKREP and report
back to the Commons and your Lordship fortnightly.
16. Referendums of future constitutional changes by Treaty, as attempted so
furtively in the rejected Constitution, should be compulsory.
ML At some stage over the last two years the Government, which I believe never
wanted this Constitution, lost touch with the requirements of the situation and
ended up with a lot of feeble red lines instead of a coherent strategy. Now they
are paying the price.
But it is not too late. M.Pompidou once said that Britain’s three best qualities
were humour, tenacity and realism. Now is the time to mobilise all three in the
cause of a better Europe which we all want to see.
ENDS
|
