items tagged with Europe
An article by Bill Cash published in The Times on 21 March 1996
Today the Commons debates the White Paper on Europe, to which I replied yesterday in my own Blue Paper. This debate is so fundamental to the future of Britain that both Government and Opposition thought it wise to bury the issue with a one-line whip. This shows how far the Europeanisation of Britain has undermined the vitality and integrity of British politics.
The essence of British conservatism is that we retain through our Parliament the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances while insisting on the fixed and immutable principles of democracy, accountability and self-government. No British Government has the right to give this inheritance away.
The process of European integration contradicts these principles. The White Paper, high on rhetoric, is low on principle and silent on renegotiation of Britain's position. When I proposed putting monetary union on the agenda of the inter-governmental conference (IGC), so that this matter could be discussed as a question of principle, the Foreign Secretary replied: ``I do not follow your suggestion that it is a matter of principle.''
The White Paper speaks of our need to be ``realistic about the sort of changes we can hope to achieve at the IGC . . . If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to impose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable''. This is not realism; it is defeatism, even appeasement. It betrays a deeper problem, which the White Paper avoids, a stubborn refusal to renegotiate the Maastricht treaty despite all the evidence of its failure in the areas of jobs, the exchange-rate mechanism, monetary union, Bosnia and fishing. We must reduce the powers of the Court of Justice by reducing the competences already granted. Maastricht entails an integrationist programme for European government, which must be repealed.
Speaking last month in Louvain, Chancellor Kohl failed to distinguish between nationalism and the democratic nation-state, when he threatened that the failure of European integration would lead to war. The truth is that we run this risk if we undermine the democratic nation-state. Chancellor Kohl insisted that ``German unity and European integration are two sides of . . . the same coin''. The Treaty on European Union is the acquisition of power by other means.
This issue should not be seen as a matter of left or right, but as a matter of national interest, on which the British people have a right to a referendum. There is yet time to resolve these questions, for the IGC does not begin until March 29, and will continue until after the general election. This raises the question of the Conservative Party manifesto and the Labour Party.
The failure of the exchange-rate mechanism before our exit on September 16, 1992, severely damaged the Conservatives' credibility in government, but we are steadily recovering it. The party must show the British people that this debacle could not happen again, by ruling out the exchange-rate mechanism and monetary union in our manifesto and during the inter-governmental conference. The Labour Party is trapped. Gordon Brown says he wants managed exchange rates and monetary union. But if we Conservatives rule this out in our manifesto, we can demonstrate that Labour will be unable to fulfil its promises about jobs, health, education, public expenditure and a host of other issues. To fail to do so would be to throw away our best weapon in the general election. This involves renegotiating Maastricht, and perhaps telling the other EU members that otherwise we will veto the IGC.
Our British identity and independence have been withering in the face of attacks by Brussels, power-play in Germany and France, and the activities of Euro-fanatics at home. Conservatives must now match the rhetoric of the White Paper by putting British interests first when it comes to policy. We have been treated with too much contempt for too long by those with whom we have tried to co-operate. We can and will work with our partners in Europe, but only on mutual terms, not simply on theirs. We will not be trampled on. We will not watch as our laws are overturned by the Court of Justice and our institutions, which have stood the test of time, are derided and treated as hollow. We have saved Britain and Europe twice in a century, and we are now called upon to do so again.
If we do not regain for ourselves the only sovereignty which really counts, which is the political will and authority of a democratic nation, we shall deserve to fail. Then we shall enter a dark age of subordination to the will of others, and the Conservative Party will lose its raison d'etre. As Disraeli said, ``the Tory Party is a national party or it is nothing''.
House of Commons, 10 November 2010
"This debate and the Minister's remarks remind me of what Alice said in "Through the Looking-Glass", when she referred to Humpty Dumpty and his rather scornful tone:
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said...'it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-that's all.'"
That is the essence of the question of European economic governance. We have been told that it is good for us, that it does not affect us and that it does not make a difference. However much one gets into the interpretation of those words, the European Scrutiny Committee's report makes it clear that there are significant differences, in aggregate, between different parts of the regulations and directives. If the proposal is accepted by the Government, they will effectively cross the Rubicon and similarly, by acquiescing in ever-greater European governance over our economy, they will significantly undermine our ability to govern ourselves. We need less Europe, not more.
The proposals extend to the United Kingdom, as a member of the European Union, thereby raising questions of sovereignty. Under the aegis of the forthcoming Bill on the European Union, my Committee will hold an inquiry so that we can sort out once and for all whether it is the House of Commons, Parliament and that sovereignty which governs the country, or whether it is the European Union. Under Standing Orders, the Committee's duty is to report to the House, not to the Government, on matters that we regard as requiring debate by reason of their legal or political importance. The scrutiny reserve remains in place until the debate has taken place, and thereafter Ministers can, and no doubt will, vote and/or agree the proposals, but may continue negotiations.
I was glad that the Minister's explanatory memorandum stated specifically, on several vital matters, that the Government would
"seek to ensure in negotiations"
that matters of concern would be improved. In doing so, the memorandum by definition conceded that these issues have not been resolved entirely, that negotiations could improve them, that they do make a difference to the United Kingdom, its Government and its Parliament and that they have to be remedied. As Chairman of the Committee, I have placed in the Library a note in my name on all these matters, so anyone who wishes to look at them may do so.
I was puzzled by the Prime Minister's response to a question that I asked during his statement to the House on the outcome of the European Council meeting. He accepted that the matter was complex and required a greater opportunity for exchange of opinions and explanation, but he also said:
"This is not a new framework."-[ Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 614.]
I find that extremely puzzling, however one construes it, given the evidence before us and the specific reference to a new surveillance framework in the taskforce report and in the presidency conclusions that he signed off. The truth is that the Commission intends to exert peer pressure on all member states of the European Union. The taskforce report of 21 Octoberpreceded documents being placed in the Library, following an urgent question I asked, emblazoned with the word "limité", which means very restricted circulation. They included a letter of 9 Julyfrom the Chancellor of the Exchequer to other member states. It might be thought that there was every reason to present those documents to the European Scrutiny Committee, even if they were not specifically depositable. The Committee does not operate by website.
A substantial question on whether the UK is affected has been dealt with in a note that I received from the Library, from which I shall quote, on increased macroeconomic surveillance. It says:
"It is proposed that a greater role is played by the Commission in macroeconomic surveillance. This surveillance mechanism would be distinct from that currently taking place under the SGP"-
the stability and growth pact-
"because it is non-fiscal in nature; it will focus on countries' broader macroeconomic positions in relation to the rest of the EU."
The note goes on:
"The idea of deeper macroeconomic surveillance was put forward in March this year as part of the...Europe 2020 proposals",
which were, of course, under the previous Government. The note continues:
"As originally envisaged, the deeper surveillance framework would apply only to the euro area countries; however, the Commission proposals of 30 (th)June"-
after the general election-
"and the Task Force Report of 21st October"
both apply to "all Member States". That is a matter of considerable concern. Why have the coalition Government agreed to extend the framework to all the member states, whereas the previous Government appear to have confined it exclusively to the euro area? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison)said, the taskforce recommends deeper macroeconomic surveillance, with the introduction of a new mechanism underpinned by a new legal framework based on article 121. The Minister's explanatory memorandum specifically refers to the legal impact and therefore the jurisdiction of these matters, as I have already mentioned, which clearly shows that there is a legal impact on the UK. Therefore, by definition, the proposed mechanism affects the UK and hands over jurisdiction in these matters to the European Court of Justice for interpretation and construction.
Furthermore, it is possible, and even likely, that the stricter reporting requirements will apply to the United Kingdom under the macroeconomic surveillance proposals, particularly if the UK were placed in an excessive imbalance position. We have always conceded, right from the beginning, way back to the time of the Maastricht rebellion, that there would be no sanctions because of the opt-out that we achieved. The fact that the Government continuously state that it is a victory not to have had sanctions imposed is merely a statement of the obvious. I go further. I would be grateful if someone could tell me which member states have ever paid any fines or had any sanctions imposed upon them under any of these arrangements. The answer is none, and there are those who argue that there never will be.
We are in a difficult situation with regard to how we will vote on the motion. Serious questions arise, and I was concerned when I read the letter and the appended document from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I had to extract by way of an urgent question, for which I was most grateful, Mr Speaker. In that, there is a description of economic governance, the words of which would not be easily understood. It states:
"Democratic legitimacy is vital to everything that the EU does, and Ministers need to be accountable both to other Member States and to their electorate."
I find that a new and strange doctrine, and a rather dangerous one. I had no idea that Ministers were accountable to other EU member states. It is conceded, and I agree, that the United Kingdom Budget will be presented first to the UK Parliament, but the essence of the problem is that in the compilation and the construction of the Budget, a series of data and statistical information would have to be provided. That in itself creates the framework that constricts our ability within our parliamentary process to act on our own terms and in line with the principles that underpin our parliamentary Government-that matters of taxation and spending and the formulation of them depend upon the House of Commons, not upon the European Union.
Given the significance that has been attached to these ideas, they represent a drift and an acceptance of European economic government through the surveillance framework by increasing the powers available to the Commission. This does not in any way alter the degree of intrusion into the construction of our Budget before it is presented to Parliament. One of the most difficult aspects is that far from our having a need for much less European economic governance, we are having more. As we move further forward and become more absorbed into this arrangement, we have to ask what is actually happening in the EU itself. As one of the other national European scrutiny committee chairmen said to Mr Van Rompuy when I was in Brussels the other day, "Will the European Union go bankrupt if we refuse to obey your rules?" Other member states are beginning to get the message, which is why I think Mr Van Rompuy issued that assault on Euroscepticism throughout Europe. He is getting the message that people in national Parliaments are not prepared to accept, for example, the fact that their economies have failed because of the EU's refusal to deregulate and repatriate. I mention in brief the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks on that subject, because he clearly stated that there would be no repatriation, despite what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asserted in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in 2005.
We need to generate enterprise for small and medium-sized businesses. There is the failure of the Lisbon agenda, massive unemployment, of more than 20% in some countries, riots, protests and a sense of failure, despair and democratic hopelessness...
... Rules and regulations will not turn the European Union into a thriving economy with which we trade. It is said that 50% of our trade is with the European Union, and that the proposals before us are necessary to achieve stability in the European Union. The crucial point is that, underneath all those rules and regulations and the determination to achieve European economic governance, we are going the wrong way, not the right way. The measures do affect us. We need more enterprise, more small businesses, more deregulation and repatriation. I am not surprised, therefore that in a recent opinion poll 80% of people said that they wanted the repatriation of powers from the European Union.
We are being more and more absorbed by a failed European Union. Under this coalition, roadblocks are being put up to prevent us from sorting that out, and the new surveillance framework is part of the problem, not the solution. I shall vote against the motion."
There are 14 items tagged with Europe. You can view all our tags in the Tag Cloud
Alton Ashley Aston Banking Barlaston Blythe Bridge Blythe Park Business Cheadle Checkley and Tean Community Crime and Anti Social Behaviour Developing World Eccleshall Education Employment Energy Environment Europe Families Farming Finance and Banking Forsbrook Gnosall and Haughton Health Hilderstone Local economy Local industry Loggerheads Madeley Maer Mineral extraction Moorlands District Newcastle Borough Norton Bridge Pensions Planning issues Probation Service Slindon Social Social Services Stafford Borough Stafford Hospital Stone Swynnerton Tittensor Transport Trentham Water Westminster Woodseaves