House of Commons
Wednesday 13 March 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Intergovernmental Conference
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
9.34 am
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for granting this important debate this morning. I feel enormously privileged to open the first of two debates on the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference. As we all know, the IGC is scheduled to start its deliberations on 29 March and, in the intervening period, right hon. and hon. Members will have the opportunity to form opinions about whether the negotiating position set out in the White Paper reflects their aspirations for the future of the European Community and, more to the point, their aspirations for the future of the country to which we all belong and to whose sovereign we have all sworn an oath of allegiance.
It is a sad commentary on our times that, at this defining moment in our nation's history, the White Paper makes but a passing reference to the single currency, which is pivotal to the debate about the future of the Community.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives):
That has nothing to do with the IGC.
Mr. Gill:
Doubtless that is because the Government believe, or have been pressured into believing, that economic and monetary union do not lead to political union. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will confirm or deny that the statement made to me by the Economic Secretary in her letter of 15 February--that
is an accurate representation of Government thinking.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
rose--
Mr. Gill:
I intend to give way to hon. Members, and I notice that two of my colleagues wish to intervene. I wish to reach the end of my first section and then I will give way. I have a long speech to make and I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly.
Notwithstanding the answer to my question that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give the House, let me remind him that there is a strong and growing body of opinion in Parliament and in the country that will not accept the abolition of the pound sterling and the consequences
that must inevitably stem from that decision. So the second question my hon. Friend must answer, assuming that the Economic Secretary's statement is correct, is how the Government will persuade the people of this country that they have genuinely set their faces against political union.
Mr. Marlow:
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me because I may be able to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) tried to put. From a sedentary position, he suggested that monetary union was nothing to do with the IGC. The IGC is about any reform of or changes required to the Maastricht treaty, and half of the treaty is to do with monetary union. Therefore, monetary union is a proper subject to discuss at the IGC.
Mr. Gill:
I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that he has satisfactorily dealt with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made from a sedentary position.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that I asked whether the advice that I have been given by the Economic Secretary is correct and, if it is correct, how we will persuade the great British public that economic and monetary union does not lead on to political union. When he answers that second question, may I urge my hon. Friend to recognise the fact that we are long past the point at which mere rhetoric will satisfy the voters, because for 25 years or more they have been duped and deceived by politicians whose hidden agenda is only now revealed? My hon. Friend must explain how, in logic, it is possible for a nation to surrender its currency without at the same time surrendering its sovereignty. Without a satisfactory answer to those questions, the House is entitled to conclude that the end game--as many of us have long suspected--is not a Europe of nation states, but a totally integrated United States of Europe. Why else is it that Governments have signed not one but three significant treaties, all of which have imposed ever-increasing hegemony on Europe? I trust that the Minister will answer that question too.
I turn next to the submissions that Ministers have received in advance of yesterday's publication of the White Paper. Quite apart from representations from individual Members of Parliament, my hon. Friend will also be aware of the papers submitted by the Conservative 2000 group, the British committee of the European Research Group--comprising 12 right hon. and hon. Members--and the group of eight Conservative Members from whom the party Whip was withdrawn on 28 November 1994, because of their refusal to support a Government motion to send an additional £75 million to Brussels. I trust that the Minister will not be dismissive of the views expressed in those submissions, and that he will not underestimate the huge body of public opinion that supports them--a body of opinion that will be profoundly disappointed by the Government's failure to produce proposals for treaty amendments.
Although I welcome the modest objectives that Ministers have set themselves, I will not be alone in expressing the view that failure to identify treaty changes will come to be regarded as a missed opportunity to recover competences that should never have been given away in the first place. While I am grateful that Her Majesty's Government have acceded to the request from the so-called Euro-rebels for a White Paper, I hope against hope that the statement in the conclusions of the White Paper--that the Government are
still considering their detailed approach--is a sign that Ministers, even at this late stage, are prepared to modify their negotiating stance in the light of today's debate and in the light of the debate that will take place on Thursday week. Perhaps when he sums up the Minister will be kind enough to give me that assurance.
I should like now to draw the House's attention to the submission of the European Commission--
Mr. Gill:
I will give way to my hon. Friend provided that he is not going to be a complete nuisance.
Mr. Marlow:
I am afraid I am. We dislike party splits, but I am afraid that there is a split between my hon. Friend and me. He says that the Government are not asking for treaty amendments, but in yesterday's statement the Foreign Secretary said:
Mr. Gill:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that error in my speech.
The submission by the European Commission is entitled "Reinforcing Political Union and Preparing for Enlargement". On the very first page of the document it is unequivocally stated in paragraph 2 that since 1993 the member states have adopted and given effect to the treaty on European union, which derives from
Barring the odd detail here and there, the Commission's opinion probably reflects the views of a majority of the member states. It is instructive, therefore, to compare it point by point with our Government's White Paper. The Commission says, for example, that there should be a stronger role for the European Court of Justice. If there is one special disappointment in the White Paper, it is that Her Majesty's Government's stated position on the ECJ is far less robust than we had expected. My hon. Friend, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that the House will want to examine the Government's proposals for reform of the European Court in some considerable detail when the promised memorandum is eventually published.
The Commission states:
On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government make it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that they will not accept the social chapter, when they state that
The Commission says that
Our Government say that
"any move to monetary union . . . does not necessitate political union"--
"The Government do not believe that directives, once enacted, are irreversible, and will press for treaty amendment if that proves to be the best way".--[Official Report, 12 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 786.]
"a broad, twofold aspiration: a determination to extract all the positive effects of the internal market by adding to it a single currency . . . and . . . to give the union a genuine political dimension".
Later, in paragraph 6, it is stated that
"the deepening and widening of the Union are intertwined."
"The social dimension should be one of the central themes at the Conference".
"the United Kingdom will not give up its opt-out and cannot be forced to do so".
"it should have the power of initiative in all fields."
"the EU is not a state and should take care not to develop ideas that feed people's fears"--
13 Mar 1996 : Column 898
they are real fears--
"that it has a vocation to become one."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |