| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I conclude with a very practical suggestion, which I hope will be taken seriously by this Government and by any future Government. When the suggestion is made, as it most certainly will be, that the Union needs another round of institutional reform and further amendments to its constitution, we, the British, should make it clear that we will not be prepared to sign any new treaty until the existing treaties, including the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, have actually been implemented and a genuine common market has been established, which manifestly it has not been yet. What position could be more communautaire than that? If we had the resolution to stick to it, we could hardly fail to exert more effective pressure on the Commission and other member states to actually carry out the treaty obligations that they have long since assumed but, in many cases, have continued to be remarkably successful in ignoring. If successful in that endeavour, we might then be successful in changing the attitude of the British people as well, which no amount of institutional tinkering will do.
9.17 pm
Lord Bowness: My Lords, this debate, while it is an essential parliamentary process of ratification, is nevertheless a demonstration of the ambivalence at best and outright hostility at worst that some still feel towards the European Union, of which I remind your Lordships we are part, in which we play our part in the decision making and of which, as with our partners, our democratically elected Governments have thought fit to take us into membership and to maintain that membership. Those Governments also played a part in the evolution of the original EEC into the Union of today, the most recent chapter of which is the treaty of Lisbon. So let no one say that this has all happened without our knowledge or because of the unelected Commission. Too often—and the debate about the Lisbon treaty in the press clearly demonstrates this—the relationship between the UK and the EU is expressed as one in which the two are competing or opposed to
1 Apr 2008 : Column 992
I find myself very much in agreement with the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. I am sorry if it sounds churlish towards the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, given her introduction of the Bill, but the Government’s role in all this has hardly been a striking example of dynamic leadership or commitment. Was it not the then Foreign Secretary who commented that the abandoned constitutional treaty was not a constitution for a European state and that it was a tidying-up exercise and who, ignoring the important changes that it contained, said that the name was of no significance and that even golf clubs have constitutions?
The then Prime Minister Mr Blair bowed to pressure and conceded a referendum—perhaps the time when all our problems began. France followed suit and, as they say, the rest is history. The Government then hailed what became the Lisbon treaty as a replacement for the doomed constitution but quite different, with all the constitution elements having been dropped. However, before the capitulation over the referendum, they maintained, correctly in my view, that the original treaty had not been a real constitution.
The Government now tell us how superior the Lisbon treaty is with all our opt-outs, opt-ins, emergency brakes and protocols. People ask, “Why did we agree the first treaty if there was so much wrong with it that we had to negotiate a new one?”. Of course the public are confused and feel that the Government are trying to pull the wool over their eyes. They cannot be sure whether the treaty is good or bad. The Opposition say that it is different and the Government say that it is only good because we have managed to achieve opt-outs, protocols and brakes, which will enable us to be a bit player in some of the most important areas. By and large, the press perpetuates the myths and largely goes unanswered. If the people who negotiate this on our behalf cannot be more enthusiastic, how do we expect the public so to be?
There is nothing to be gained from comparing the treaty of Lisbon with the abandoned constitutional treaty. What matters is how the Lisbon treaty changes the position of the United Kingdom compared with the position under the existing treaties. I submit to your Lordships that the European Union Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, whose excellent report we have before us tonight, was correct in adopting its approach to prepare an impact assessment. It is worth noting that, had the original treaty been proceeded with, it would have been much clearer, replacing as it would have done all the existing text.
Of course, provisions in Lisbon were proposed in the constitutional treaty, but to pretend that it is totally different is just to add to the confusion. Lisbon is an amending treaty and has to be read as such. Actual amendments are clear, but some that appear new often repeat important elements of replaced, as opposed to amended, articles.
1 Apr 2008 : Column 993
The treaty contains important changes that I welcome, such as the end of the rotating presidency, to be replaced not with a president of Europe or a head of state, as per the Daily Telegraph, and not with a mere Eurocrat, but with someone elected by the elected heads of government. Is anyone really against steps to try to ensure a more effective CFSP? Is anyone against a reduction in the number of Commissioners? Indeed, some people are against more majority voting but, before we cite the number of instances to which that will apply, perhaps we should note the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, and his breakdown of the changes that are actually involved. Do we need unanimity to approve the appointment of a member state’s nominee to the Committee of the Regions? Anyway, are we always going to find ourselves in the minority? Perhaps we should note the matters of importance where unanimity has been retained in foreign policy and defence. Are we not in favour of the involvement of national parliaments?
There are considerable changes in the areas of freedom, security and justice. The law and institutions EU sub-committee, of which I am a member, looked at that under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Mance. In many instances, the new treaty is more specific and open to less doubt than the provisions of the existing one. I draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 6.140 of the Select Committee report, which says:
“The power under the current Article ... to adopt measures of judicial cooperation in civil matters is ... potentially broad, since the list of areas of potential action ... is non-exclusive”.
- “contains a more extensive list of ... of potential action. However, these in practice are areas in which cooperation has already been undertaken under the current Article, and the list given is exhaustive”.
Similar statements are made on page 141 about judicial co-operation in criminal matters, but I will not delay your Lordships by reading that now. Notwithstanding all that, myths are already growing about the threat to common law and about foreign police stamping over England’s green and pleasant land.
We also looked at the Charter of Fundamental Rights together with the protocol. Contrary to some statements, the protocol will have the force of law if the treaty comes into force. The recommendation makes it clear, however, that the protocol will make little or no difference. Before those who are totally opposed to it cheer, I should point out that the charter draws on the European Convention on Human Rights and other instruments by which the United Kingdom is already bound.
I must confess not to understand the hostility towards the European Court of Justice, as if it were a law maker rather than an adjudicator. We have to recognise that independent courts sometimes give rise to decisions uncomfortable to Governments. I should have thought that Governments of all persuasions in this country would have learnt that from their encounters with our own domestic courts.
I did not believe that the constitutional treaty amounted to a constitution despite its name, and I have always been against a referendum, even before
1 Apr 2008 : Column 994
As for the issue of passerelles, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, makes a persuasive case for primary legislation. In my view, however, the provisions of the treaty and the provisions of the Bill combine to provide significant safeguards, not least because they will require the agreement of both Houses of Parliament—and this House, appointed for life, is a rather greater safeguard than a House predominantly elected from lists drawn up by the parties that some would prefer to see us replaced by. Do we really want proposals for primary legislation that will lead us into long debates and discussions about the merits or otherwise of the European Union and our membership? I personally believe that not to be good for the United Kingdom or for the European Union.
Of course the treaty of Lisbon is a compromise, but it is not the end of constitutional and parliamentary life as we know it. We should bear in mind the fact that our partners are also proud nations, some of which have regained freedom in relatively recent times. To suggest that Lisbon threatens their national sovereignty is to suggest that they have colluded and in some way been careless with that recently regained freedom. We have our opt-outs, our opt-ins, our protocols, our emergency brakes. Let us accept with good grace that these are compromises by our partners as much as by ourselves and, of course after proper scrutiny, let us get on and ratify and pass this treaty.
9.28 pm
Lord Burnett: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. We have the privilege of serving together on European Union Sub-Committee E of this House. We take rather different views on this treaty, and it is ironic that he should have been selected to speak just before me. Nevertheless it is one of the many pleasant paradoxes of this place that not only do we remain on the most cordial terms, but he also kindly drew my attention a few days ago to the fact that this Second Reading debate was scheduled for today. I do not know whether my colleagues will share that gratitude.
In their respective manifestos at the last general election, all three major parties committed themselves to a referendum on the constitution. I campaigned on this at the last election for my putative successor and for others in other constituencies. I had also given this commitment on a referendum to many of my constituents, both orally and in correspondence, leading up to the 2005 general election. I could reiterate at length quotations from the German Chancellor, the Spanish Prime Minister, the Irish Taoiseach and many others. Mr Valery Giscard
1 Apr 2008 : Column 995
Michael Connarty MP, the Labour chairman of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, has noted that,
- “every provision of the Constitutional Treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Referendum Treaty. We think they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position”.
I acknowledge that, for every individual Member of this place and the other place, the comparison between the constitution and this treaty is a matter of personal judgment. It is my judgment on this treaty that we should have a referendum. Furthermore, the public believe that they are entitled to a referendum on the treaty. Great cynicism of politicians and the political process is fuelled by politicians failing to live up to the commitments that they make to the people.
It is a sad fact that individuals are pigeon-holed as anti- or pro-European Union. I support a referendum, but I also support our membership of the European Union. It should be a partnership of independent nation states which work together for the common good. I welcomed enlargement of the Union. The enlarged Union has worked perfectly well without this treaty. It is obvious that an organisation such as the EU is bound to evolve, but I maintain that Europe is seeking to evolve too fast and too far away from the democratic control of national parliaments. This frustrates and alienates the public. Europe should concentrate on doing less and trying to do that much better. During the past 15 years, we have had a series of treaties—Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice—in which more and more powers have been ceded to the European Union by the nation states. The European Union appears disdainful of the public and public opinion. Whenever the public are consulted and endeavour to put the brakes on further integration—for example, the French and Dutch in their referendums on the constitution—the reaction of the EU elite is to make a few changes and then have a rerun of the same thing, but this time without consulting the public. This disdain for the public is, in the long run, deeply damaging to Europe. The European Union should endeavour to involve the public far more accountably and democratically in its affairs. The public’s distrust of the European Union sows the seeds of major problems in the future.
It would be open and honest for the European Union and the nation states to agree and commit to its ultimate constitutional destination. Is it to be a federal, integrated Union, or is it to be a more loose association of nation states?
As to the treaty, I have concerns about the effect of the collapse of the pillars, about wider powers for the European Court of Justice, about the effectiveness of the opt-outs and particularly the self-amending provisions—the passerelle provisions. I was pleased to note that, when the Conservative amendments on these provisions were debated in the other place on 4 March, my party supported them. Parliament must retain the crucial role in these matters.
1 Apr 2008 : Column 996
There will be time to debate the treaty in detail later. However, the fact that the European Union will have its own separate legal personality will have far-reaching and controversial effects.
This will not be the last EU treaty; as always, there will be more, each claiming that greater power should be ceded to the centralised institutions of the EU. In the mean time, I acknowledge that our future lies in Europe, but let us play fair with the people of Britain and the people of Europe. Let us together discuss and agree the ultimate constitutional settlement that is to be achieved.
9.34 pm
Lord Radice: My Lords, I congratulate the European Union Committee and my noble friend the chairman on a wonderful report. It is a great encyclopaedia of the facts of the treaty of Lisbon on which I hope we shall all draw over the next few weeks. I also congratulate the Constitution Committee and its chairman on its report. I noted its conclusion that the reform treaty is hardly a threat to our democracy.
This has been a most impressive debate with notable speeches, especially from pro-European Conservatives, who made very good speeches indeed. I congratulate noble Lords on their contributions. Listening to those who oppose the reform treaty it is clear that apart from the question of a referendum, to which I shall return later, their main sticking-point is sovereignty. They argue that the treaty involves an unacceptable loss of sovereignty. I am writing a book on the Attlee Administration and over the weekend I studied the British Labour Cabinet’s reaction in 1950 to the Schuman plan—the scheme to pool the coal and steel resources of France and Germany. Other European countries were able to join, including the United Kingdom, if they wished. The scheme was to be organised under a common authority. It was the brainchild of Jean Monnet, who has played a walk-on part in this debate, although he might be surprised to find that he was doing so. Noble Lords will remember Herbert Morrison’s off-the-cuff response, “The Durham miners won’t wear it”. But the Cabinet papers show that the main reason the then British Labour Cabinet was not prepared to participate even in the negotiations over the European Coal and Steel Community was that the plan involved what it saw as a loss of sovereignty, which it thought could lead to a federal state. We have heard it all before. The Cabinet turned it down flat and from that moment we lost the leadership of Europe, which was ours for the asking. As we now see, the Cabinet’s fears were grossly exaggerated. The so-called high authority in the end turned out to be mainly advisory. The effective power rested with the member states. As to the idea of a federal state, 60 years later the European Union, with the bureaucracy of a medium-sized British ministry and a budget of under 1 per cent of the European GNP, has hardly the structure of a federal state.
As the Lisbon treaty underlines, the power in the EU is derived from its members, who can leave the Union if they wish. Competences are governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Provision is also made for competences to be transferred back to
1 Apr 2008 : Column 997
Of course, let us not exaggerate. My noble friend Lord Kinnock made an analysis of the instances of the extension of qualified majority voting: the 16 changes that do not apply to the UK or do only if we agree; the 14 that are purely procedural and the 20 that are in areas that are important, but they are important for us, and that is why we would like to extend qualified majority voting to aid to disaster areas, the strengthening of research and innovation, the protection of intellectual property rights and above all energy policy. All those are in the UK interest, and we retain the veto on vital nation state issues such as tax, social security, foreign policy and defence policy. For most other issues, QMV is almost always in the UK interest, because it enables us—we never hear this point put by the opponents of the treaty—to get other countries to do things that we want them to do. In other words, by pooling our sovereignty we acquire additional power; what I think my noble friend called “super sovereignty”.
If Members opposite doubt that, I invite them to consider the situation if the CAP was not subject to QMV. Without QMV, do they really believe that there would ever be any CAP reform? There has been some, and there will be more in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, one of the architects of the single market, to whom we have paid tribute today, introduced QMV on an unprecedented scale, and she well understood the point. I quote from her memoirs:
“British businesses would be among those most likely to benefit from an opening-up of other countries’ markets. For example, we were more or less effectively excluded from the important German insurance and financial services markets. The price which we would have to pay to achieve a Single Market with all its economic benefits, though, was more majority voting in the Community”.
She understood the point; I beg Members opposite to understand the point as well. The United Kingdom benefits from QMV, and we should never forget that.
Under QMV, the UK has proved extremely good at assembling majorities, and the enlargement has provided us with a larger pool of potential allies. Again, we should not forget that. The reforms of the QMV
1 Apr 2008 : Column 998
Finally, there is the referendum. I am on the record in this House as saying that because, unlike with the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty, there was no major shift in powers between the nation states and the EU, it was not necessary to hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty. If a referendum was not necessary for a constitutional treaty, as it was then, it certainly is not necessary for the Lisbon reform treaty. Of course, in content there are similarities between the two treaties, but the Dutch Council of State, which incidentally is one of the few bodies that has made a study of the two treaties from this point of view, said that,
- “the proposed Reform Treaty is substantially different from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”.
It said that because the structure and conception of the Bill is different. The Brussels European Council of 21 and 22 June stated that:
“The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text ... is abandoned”.
Instead, the treaty of Lisbon amends the EU treaties.
In one sense, symbols may be thought to be trivial and they have been swept aside by those who are against them as being trivial. In the end, symbols are not trivial, because they lead towards a federal state. Above all, the reform treaty does not set up signposts for a gradual expansion towards a federal state. The Brussels Council stated that the amending treaty,
- “provides the Union with a stable and lasting institutional framework. We expect no change in the foreseeable future”.
That has never been said before by a European Council.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |