|
| |
Ode to Joy. Lord Howell explains
the real case against the draft Constitution, and the parallel case for an
alternative, in a Lords debate on the EU, may 11th 2004
4.48 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that exposition. My
thanks are sincere. Except where she portrayed the position of those of us on
this side of the House in a rather negative and, I believe, inaccurate way, the
rest was, as usual, extremely clear. As we all recognise in this House, the
Minister is immensely skilled at presenting what are basically rather unclear
situations in a very clear way. We are all grateful to her for that.
As the Minister reminds us, these negotiations on this constitution, or
Constitutional Treaty—I think that it has to be called one of those two
things—are now nearing their end. In a few days there will be another document
and some progress will be made. The whole thing has to be tied up by 17 June,
which is only weeks away. It is right, particularly in this House which sees
itself properly as a safeguard and a guarantor of our constitution, that we
should at this stage seek some very detailed information about the Government's
overall approach—which has differed somewhat from the approach that they put
forward in their White Paper last September—and the policies and some of the
tactical details, although obviously not all of them.
However, my first question is even more fundamental. We have read in recent days
about a whole string of new red lines and extra demands to which the Government
now say that they will stick. That lacks clarity, because we were told last
December that all the red lines had been agreed in essence, so that it was
merely a question of tying up the ends. It now appears that there are a whole
lot of new red lines, about which the Minister did not have much to say. We need
to know which are the red lines that the Government intend to defend. Are the
Government really going to stand firm on those red lines? Do they mean what they
say?
For instance, are they really going to get the legal status of the unnecessary
charter removed? Are they really going to keep the Union and the European Court
of Justice right out of our defence and foreign policy, because that will mean
substantial changes to the current draft? Are they really going to halt further
integration of social policy? Are they really going to roll back qualified
majority voting on asylum issues? Will they halt further extension of EU powers
in a whole range of areas and new competences? Will they give Parliament real
power to block EU-originated legislation—that means the red card procedure as
proposed by Gisela Stuart and many others, which would allow a number of
parliaments to block Commission-initiated legislation? Are they going to stop
the EU foreign minister from intruding on UK foreign policy and presiding over
and initiating policy proposals?
That is what we really want to know: will they really do those things or is this
just talk? Are they going to let us down again? The reason that we are entitled
to be a little cynical about all those promises is that if even half those
undertakings are to be achieved, that will require quite a different treaty from
the one in draft and the
11 May 2004 : Column 178
one being presently prepared by the Irish presidency—which, according to the
latest information that I have, is heading in quite the opposite direction:
towards more centralisation and away from the sort of undertakings about which
the Government are talking.
That raises another question. If the Government are really going to be robust,
despite what the Minister has told us, what is required is a very different
treaty draft from the present text, pointing in quite different directions. One
must ask what thought the Government have given to those different directions.
What is the fall-back position? What is plan B? I know that the Minister chided
me the other day, as she did again today, about raising the idea of airing
alternatives, as though in some way any thinking about alternatives is
impermissible. But when we look at the situation in Europe, we see that none of
that has stopped other European leaders from announcing clear alternatives;
namely—they are repeated almost every day now—that if we, the British, block
their constitution and vote no, we shall be marginalised and other countries
will go ahead to form a core Europe, presumably on a different treaty basis, we
will be isolated, and all the rest.
The Minister asserts that that is what would happen. Indeed, the other day, she
and Ministers in the other place were agreeing with that threat about our being,
to cite the noble Baroness,
"pushed to the sidelines".—[Official Report, 29/4/04; col. 890.]
when Giscard d'Estaing gave voice to that threat. We are entitled to ask why we
allow ourselves to be cowed by the former President, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing,
by President Chirac, by Mr Pascal Lamy, by Romano Prodi and by other European
leaders. Are we not capable of putting forward our own ideas and vision of how
we should go ahead in Europe?
The Minister may say that that is quite unrealistic, but I noticed that only
last week the Economist magazine reminded us that Britain is now the richest
country in Europe. We have the highest income per head, so we are no longer a
poor relation tagging on behind. The Economist reminded us that that the UK
continues to grow faster than the euro area and that the gap will widen. We are
told that the UK is set to become the biggest economy in Europe—bigger even than
the more populous German economy. The Economist states:
"These economic realities should be remembered when considering the latest
fashionable notion in Brussels: the idea that the UK might be chucked out of the
EU if it refuses to ratify the new Constitution".
What outdated and unmitigated rubbish is the notion about being pushed to the
sidelines, let alone chucked out. In no other country, in no other EU member
state, are people being fed by their Government with that threatening nonsense
about being sidelined if they turn down this constitutional document—as, of
course, the voters in several states may well do when they come to hold their
referendums, as they will.
11 May 2004 : Column 179
As for the proposition that the constitutional draft that we have now somehow
clearly defines or limits the powers of the EU institutions, which we would all
like to see, unfortunately, that is anything but clear in the text. On the
contrary, a new fog of uncertainty about who has powers to do what is created—a
fog behind which it is obvious that big new powers or competences are being
sought for the central Union institutions.
I urge the Minister when she winds up to clarify what has been said by various
authorities that we should respect about whether new powers are being taken to
the centre or left with member states. The noble Baroness is fond, as have been
the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, of citing the Lords EU Committee
report last October, which asserts that under the proposed constitution,
"the balance of power would shift from the Commission to the Member States"—
I think that I have it right that that is what the Minister was citing the other
day.
The excellent chairman of the EU Committee, whom I see in his place, the noble
Lord, Lord Grenfell, made it absolutely clear on 3 December and again on 10
December that the report was referring to the strengthening of the role of the
Council and that it meant:
"The balance of power is shifting to the Council".—[Official Report, 3/12/03;
col. 336.]
Are we to believe the Government's view that the Council is the same thing as
the member states? The Council is an EU institution. The Council can override
member states by majority vote. No one in common parlance would equate the two.
Why do Ministers continue to do so? The only people they are deceiving are
themselves. It is a separate institution.
If Ministers do not believe the evidence of their own eyes about the question of
powers—the long list of new competences in which the EU is to become involved,
all of them coming under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—let
them read another Lords EU report, an excellent one that we have not yet debated
on the future role of the European Court of Justice, which we shall debate in a
few days' time. In that report, they will find both evidence and conclusions
that under the constitution as proposed,
"the powers of the Union would be increased";
that there will be a new legal order; that the doctrine of the primacy of
Community law will be extended; and that the ECJ will have the final say in
defining the extent of member states' powers. That is in paragraph 78 of the
European Union sub-committee report on the ECJ.
We are left wondering what Ministers really believe and whether they really
stick to their view that there is no fundamental change in the powers or
relationships between member states and the Union. The reason that we are now
doubtful about ministerial statements is because they have now chosen to hold a
referendum. Why are they holding a referendum if no fundamental changes are
involved? The Minister told us the other
11 May 2004 : Column 180
day that it was a rotten idea—and she was candid and frank about it. The
Minister for Europe was saying that a referendum was,
"only supported by Trotskyists, the National Front and the Rothermere press".
Now we can add, "the Labour Government", I suppose. It is true that the Labour
Government may have shot our fox, although, as has been pointed out to me, the
shooting of foxes is now politically correct, so it is not now quite the sin it
was.
All I can say is, thank God—and, by the way, the Deity is sadly omitted from
this constitution—that the British people can now vote down a plan to which the
only sensible response, as Sir Samuel Brittan, a learned and wise man, said in
the Financial Times the other day, is that centralisation has increased, is
increasing and ought to be diminished.
Finally, let me say how sickened some of us are at being accused of being
anti-European. The noble Baroness did not make that charge today, but many of
her friends have done so. Making that kind of statement is to set in motion what
has rightly been called a fraudulent debate. Unlike the Government and, I think,
the Liberal Democrats, we on these Benches are perfectly happy to set out the
European Union we want to see and the reforms that we believe would really help
our country—and an enlarged Europe—to go forward more successfully.
The Union we want to see is a "live and let live" kind of Union; which anchors
national parliaments at the heart of EU decision-making; which really does
return powers to the nation states, as this treaty definitely does not; which
abhors European empire building; which respects the smaller states and rejects a
dominating directorate of the big three; which leaves deeper political
integration to those countries that truly want it—even though they will find
that this is the slow track, not the fast one, to prosperity, as is proving to
be the case; and which is simpler, more democratic and more accountable than
anything which this rambling 335 page document even begins to offer.
Over the next few weeks the Government will claim that their red lines have been
protected, even where they have not been. We are ready for that gambit. But, red
lines or no red lines, the Government have allowed themselves to be trapped in a
process, the outcome of which the British people do not want, which is not in
our national interests and which will embitter and divide Europe, not unite it.
Worse still—although the noble Baroness seems to believe that it is a virtue—the
Government appear to have no exit strategy or alternative way forward. The
saving grace is that when and if a referendum comes the British people will
firmly and rightly reject the whole idea and most Europeans will breathe a huge
sigh of relief. That will be the real time for an "Ode to joy".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page
|
