Lords Hansard text for 1 Apr 200801 Apr 2008 (pt 0022)

9.46 pm

Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Lord has sat down, it is my turn. There are those who are against the treaty and who want a referendum because they think that they can win. There are a few who want a referendum because they are pro the treaty and think that they can win. One side is for the treaty and one side is against the treaty. The only thing they have in common is that they rarely listen to each other’s arguments. Today may have been an exception to that rule. Then there are those who are pro the treaty, but clearly do not want a referendum, as they think they are going to lose. They do not seem to have the confidence in their own arguments; nor do the Government. Gordon Brown did not even want to be seen with his fellow premiers signing the agreement at Lisbon.

Some noble Lords are against referendums in principle. I respect that stance, but the problem with their argument is that the Labour Party in its 2005 manifesto promised a referendum on the treaty—so did the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, it was an “embarrassing” commitment by her party. I believe that it is really important that political parties keep to their manifesto commitments. We, as a revising Chamber, should ensure that Governments do so.

I believe that the vast majority of people in this country are pro-European in principle. They want to stay in the EU, but are concerned by what they see as the surreptitious transfer of powers to Europe. It not that people are necessarily against the transfers, but they do not understand the details. This Government have not been open and honest about the process and have muddled the issues. In many ways, that is the Government’s own fault. Most people do not want a European superstate or a European constitution. That does not make them anti-European. The Conservative Party has always been pro-Europe. We still are. In my time in this House the only party that has been in favour of withdrawal from the EU is the Labour Party. I wonder how many noble Lords opposite, here today, were Members of another place when that was their party’s policy. They seem to be rather quiet on looking back at their history.

One must feel really sorry for the Liberal Democrats. They are impaled on a policy that makes no sense. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in an uncharacteristic and intemperate speech, prayed in aid the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. If the late noble Lord had listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, he might even have immediately rejoined the Labour Party.

The question that we have to answer is whether this Bill brings into force a treaty that is the same or largely similar to that proposed in the EU constitution. The answer seems to be yes. Key European leaders think so; the Irish Government think so; and the all-party House of Commons Select Committee thought so.

The Government claim that there are new red lines, special protocols and opt-outs. They may be welcome but it is clear that they are not new; they are the same red lines as before. This House will have to come to a view when we debate those issues. However, unlike

1 Apr 2008 : Column 1000

another place, we will be able to come to a view after a full debate, without a guillotine. The Government promised line-by-line scrutiny of the treaty in another place but it never happened. Large areas of the treaty relating to transport, defence, social issues and border controls were ignored. They were never debated. I shall not go into all the issues now—they are for a later stage—but I believe that one policy area is crucial if the EU is to thrive.

In the countries that have recently joined—many free from the shackles of the iron curtain—we have seen the importance of democratic government, and the Government must prove that this treaty promotes national democratic government.

It is claimed that the treaty taken as a whole does not amount to a significant transfer of power to EU institutions. I think that we will have to examine what “significant” really means.

We can improve the Bill by accepting the recommendations of the House of Lords Constitution Committee: first, to amend the Bill to ensure that Parliament is given sufficient time to scrutinise the proposal in respect of passerelles; and, secondly, to amend the Bill to require the Government to obtain approval from both Houses of Parliament before using opt-ins or opt-outs in any policy area. We will be able to debate what benefits the Lisbon treaty brings to this country. Does it improve our access to European markets? Does it involve more power going to Brussels, or does it give more power to the European Parliament or national Parliaments? It may do both. Finally, does it create greater transparency and better understanding of the functions of the EU?

This treaty amends the treaty that established the European Union. It is important, and the Government should not shirk a referendum. It was promised in their election manifesto and we must ensure that they keep that manifesto promise. It is a matter of trust and, as my noble friend Lord Lawson said, a matter of political integrity. The Government should have the confidence to trust the people to listen to the arguments and make up their own minds. My noble friend Lord Brittan, who is not in his place, wrote in the Times that,

Only a former EU Commissioner could use a French word to describe what an English Parliament should do. I looked up the word “piquant” in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Its definition is “pleasantly stimulating”. That is something we should all vote for.

9.52 pm

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, as one who believes in European integration and co-operation, I welcome the Lisbon treaty and very much support its aims. For me, narrow national boundaries are increasingly outdated and irrelevant in the global age. Today’s opportunities are global—in trade, tourism, education and sport—and today’s threats are global: terrorism, climate change, epidemics and famine. Thus, bodies such as the EU have to be progressive and outward-looking, and I see that in the Lisbon treaty.

1 Apr 2008 : Column 1001

Inevitably in a debate such as this with so many speakers, there is considerable duplication of argument, but I have to say that, although I personally bade farewell to the Conservative Party in the mid-1990s, primarily because of its anti-European stance, an encouraging feature of today’s debate has been the number of pro-European Conservative speakers. My calculation is that at the moment it is running at about 50:50, and I very much look forward to the winding-up speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a little later.

I intend briefly to focus my remarks on defence issues and, more specifically, on the opportunities for defence co-operation between Britain and France. That was referred to a little earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. Looking back, the decision in 1966 by a de Gaulle-led France to withdraw from NATO’s military structure was a tragedy for that organisation—for cohesive western security, for multinational peacekeeping operations and, of course, for France herself, as she has had to shoulder the cost burden, in every sense, of maintaining sizeable armed forces complete with her own nuclear deterrent. French military deployment overseas was predominantly in Africa, post the colonial legacy, although she participated in the Balkans operations, in the first Gulf War and, of course, is currently engaged in the Lebanon and Afghanistan. Over the years, co-operation on military equipment relative to total military expenditure has been very limited. We have had some successes in aircraft such as the Jaguar, in helicopters such as the Puma, the Gazelle and the Lynx, and some success in the missile field, but little success with joint naval developments.

I shall not go through the history of European military agreements and declarations, but the Lisbon treaty extends enhanced co-operation to defence by proposing, as a main innovation, permanent structured co-operation, harmonising military needs in defence equipment and co-operation in training and logistics and improving the capability of EU-led operations. Additionally, the Petersburg missions are extended to humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping, counterterrorism, military assistance and disarmament. The European Defence Agency is introduced into the EU treaty, and its mandate is broadened to encourage greater, more co-ordinated defence capability, particularly in equipment programmes.

The Lisbon treaty reaffirms the Amsterdam commitment on the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. I emphasise, though, that in European defence, primacy lies with NATO. As the House of Lords impact assessment makes clear—my noble friend Lord Roper, referred to this earlier—NATO remains the foundation of the collective defence of member states.

This debate takes place relatively soon after Nicolas Sarkozy won the French presidency; indeed, only days after his Royal Gallery address. He is of a different generation and background from previous French leaders and represents a real opportunity for change from France’s relative isolationism and protectionism. At present France has her own defence review under way, due to be published in the spring. The hard truth is that for second-rank powers like Britain and France, it is simply no longer affordable to sustain comprehensive independent defence capabilities. Of course Europe’s

1 Apr 2008 : Column 1002

prime defence alliance, via NATO, has to be with the United States, as the world’s current superpower. But as President Sarkozy said recently, and was quoted in the Economist:

Already in France changes are under way. It is to cut its airborne nuclear arsenal by one-third and wants to put its relationship with Africa on to a different footing; too often it has been seen as neo-colonial interference. There is every indication that Sarkozy wants to bring France back into NATO’s integrated military structure. Hopefully, at Bucharest he will announce an increased deployment of French forces in Afghanistan.

Given the broadly comparable sizes of UK and French forces and our respective defence budgets, there has to be a great prize in a much closer military relationship. How do the Government intend to respond to President Sarkozy’s overtures? It is in our national interest, and in the interests of the EU, to respond favourably and positively, perhaps with a symbolic gesture. We have a number of US airbases in the UK. Could we not exchange an airbase here for one perhaps in France, or a least offer the French an enclave on our shores? Or would it be possible to fly a small number of Rafale aircraft from our new carriers in due course?

Let us acknowledge our commitment to the Lisbon treaty, and all that it represents, in a practical way with tangible military co-operation between Britain and France, and end the years of unfortunate separation.

9.58 pm

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lee, has eloquently supported military co-operation with France. I agree with every single word he has said on that—but he does not need the Lisbon treaty to do it. This is the trouble.

I voted enthusiastically in this House—when I was 32, 33 or something like that—for the accession treaty to the European Common Market, as it was then called. In 1975, I spoke, from about this position in the Chamber, on the Labour Party's proposals for a referendum, which was its very clever way of avoiding an outward split and keeping the second Viscount Stansgate in his place. At the time, I said, quoting Burke—unfortunately, I cannot remember the exact quotation—that this was a constitutional innovation and constitutional innovations can lead people down roads which are confusing and wrong. I think I also said that Napoleon was confirmed in power by referenda. Referenda are easily manipulable—referenda also confirmed Hitler in power. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I am suspicious of referenda, but—this is an enormous “but”—if someone says, “I am going to have a referendum”, that someone should do as they say. It is called breaking one’s word if one does not; it is called reneging on what one promised to do; and some could say that honour is lacking.

I also speak as a Euro-fanatic. I claim, not totally unreasonably, to know a little about European history. I know about the Treaty of Verdun and Charlemagne’s grandsons; I know that the Crown Prince of Prussia

1 Apr 2008 : Column 1003

complained that France had invaded Germany 30 times in the previous 200 years after France had declared war on Prussia for such footling reasons to do with the Ems telegram; and I think I know a little about the Reformation and the Renaissance. I say that not to show off, but to show how deeply I am a lover of European civilisation and I see the absolute essentialness of Europe co-operating and continuing on its way.

I also say that because I do not want the European Community to fail. It will fail if it tries to do too much. What interest do the Lithuanians have in Surrey landfill sites? That is nothing to do with them. The people of Aberdeen have a greater interest in North Sea fisheries than do the burgesses of Salonika. That is the problem and eventually, as night follows day, the concentration will increase more and more, regulation will increase more and more and it will try to do more and more. To pretend, as several noble Lords have, that this is the last piece of European integration is a flight of fancy. To pretend that this treaty is not an empowerment treaty of the European Union is, I suggest, simply cloud-cuckoo-land. If we want Europe to succeed, we want the people of England, of France, of Germany, of Scotland to be enthusiastic for what it does.

I want to be able to walk without let or hindrance on the Continent; I want to be able to walk into a shop; I want to be able to buy anything or sell anything; I want to be able to visit Prague, or Vienna or Paris—we have a flat in Paris. I want Europe to be those things, but it is no business of mine how the French run their tourist industry; that is for the French. Surely we should concentrate on ensuring that Europe's trade is as free as possible, not only internally—as we know there are still some barriers—but also externally so that Europe can trade and get its act together and become rich. That is important. We should leave the French to say when or how or what entrance fee they charge at the Louvre. It is nothing to do with us. Why should tourism be anything to do with the European Community? It is to do with the National Trust when their houses are open. It is to do with the abbaye de C�(r)teaux when tourists should go.

As things are, we cannot get things like the fisheries policy right. There have been two serious Select Committee inquiries into the common fisheries policy in your Lordships’ House. They have been intelligent, well put together and learned. After the debate on the first one, we were told, “Oh yes, it will all be put right”. Ten years later, along comes the second: “Oh yes, it will all be put right”. We are still discarding something like two-thirds of the fish caught. They still have not made the net shape square, which would enable the vast majority of discards not to be caught.

Things like this are vital for Europe’s future. Unless we get these broad issues right, the whole of the rest of the thing will produce antagonism from the people of Europe. That antagonism could eventually force Parliament—which still has the power to do it—to say, “We are under such pressure because it is becoming so unpopular that we will pass an Act of Parliament repealing the 1971 accession Act”. Parliament has the power to do that, because it is ultimately sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successor.

1 Apr 2008 : Column 1004

I do not want it to do that. I want Europe to work. I do not want it to foul up. I do not want it to become constipated. I suggest that this treaty will increase constipation to the disadvantage of us all.

10.07 pm

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who earlier set out very succinctly indeed my position on the European Union and the Common Market. I was not in favour of going into the Common Market, and I still believe that we should leave the European Union. For that I have been called a “little Englander”, a “nutter” and all that sort of thing. Today, however, we had a new one from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who described people like me as “Luddites”. We had better put that on the record as being not very diplomatic from a former diplomat. I hope that he will think very carefully before he hands out further epithets.

Like other noble Lords, I am concerned that the Government have reneged on their promise of a referendum. It is not good politics to fail to honour an election pledge and to accept the plaudits of Mr Sarkozy rather than gain the respect of the British people. That is what seems to be happening to our Prime Minister. The way that the Bill was whipped through the House of Commons is against all parliamentary principle. The Prime Minister himself promised that there would be a full and proper debate on and examination of the treaty in the House of Commons, clause by clause, line by line, for at least 21 days. They got 12 days. They did not examine the Bill clause by clause and line by line. A new procedure was introduced under a guillotine and, in fact, the Bill was hardly examined at all. I believe that the House of Commons failed to stand up to the Government, and for that I have great regret.

Today, we have heard lots of arguments about why this treaty is not going to alter the relationship between this country and the EU. Bearing in mind that there is an opposing view and that a promise was made, what is the matter with the Government? Why have they no political nous? Why do they not go to the country? That would be the sensible thing to do. That would be good politics because in that way they win under any circumstances. They win both ways because if they won the referendum, it would be a great victory that would settle the European question for a long time, and if they failed to win, they would at least get the credit for having kept their promise. By refusing a referendum, they lose both ways. That is very foolish indeed. They ought to consider the politics of the situation if they want to win the next election. I am glad that this House is to have the opportunity to have a vote on a referendum, and I hope it will be supported across the House.

We have already heard what this treaty does. It creates a powerful new institution, a full-time president of the council, which itself becomes an institution of the EU. We know what happens when you appoint chairmen; they want more power and influence. That is exactly what will happen. There is to be a new EU foreign minister in charge of an EU diplomatic service who will make recommendations and act for the EU in

1 Apr 2008 : Column 1005

negotiations and on EU matters in the United Nations. There is to be an EU public prosecutor. The treaty also gives the European Parliament new powers, scraps 51 vetoes, takes further steps towards a European army and lays the foundations of a European police force and judicial system, not to mention the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Some of us saw this in 1985. During the debates on the Single European Act, the late Lord Bruce of Donington and I sat on the Opposition Front Bench and opposed it on behalf of the then Labour Opposition. Times have, of course, changed since then when the Labour Party was all in favour of coming out of the Common Market and the EEC. That has changed now, and it wants to stay in under any circumstances. Lord Bruce and I opposed the Single European Act from the Labour Party Front Bench. We predicated that the SEA was taking a big step towards a federal or unitary state, but we were ridiculed and given assurances that all would be well, that a lot of it was intergovernmental and that we did not need to worry about the loss of sovereignty. Now, in this treaty, we find that intergovernmentalism is dead and has collapsed into a single European treaty with a single legal personality. I have been around this for a very long time, and will, no doubt, be around it for a lot more time yet, God willing.

I turn to a couple of other matters. Together with many other people, I am concerned about the position of Her Majesty the Queen. What will be the effect on her precedence when in the presence of the President of the European Council—in a country of the EU or in this country itself? That is important, and I think we should be told exactly what her position will be. I should also like to know what will be her position vis-a-vis the Commonwealth. Will she still take precedence in the Commonwealth? Will the Commonwealth still want her to be its head, bearing in mind that we have virtually immersed ourselves into the European Union? Are we quite sure that, by asking her to sign the Bill, she will not be in breach of her coronation oath? Those are questions that need to be answered. They have not been answered previously and they ought to be answered now.

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page