Luxembourg Compromise (Hansard, 7 July 1982)

§ 51. Mr. Squire
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that progress is now being made which will ensure that voting arrangements within the European Economic Community will suffice to protect vital interests in future.

§ Mr. Hurd
When the Foreign Ministers discussed this question on 20 June, member States supported the principle that decisions should be deferred where a member State considers that its important national interests are at stake. In the light of this discussion, he Government expect that the practice that the Community has followed with one exception since 1966 will continue to operate.

§ Mr. Squire
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, provided a satisfactory definition of "vital national interest" can be agreed, this country continues to have more to gain from majority voting—not least in the circumstances advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) a moment ago—than it can by insisting on all decisions being made unanimously?

§ Mr. Hurd
There are occasions when, without any controversy, decisions have been taken by majority voting. However, my hon. Friend will no doubt agree that a community of nation States cannot effectively work except on the basis that where a member State believes that important national interests are involved it should have the right to say that a decision must be deferred.

§ Mr. Cryer
Is it not the position that this country entered the Common Market following a referendum decided on the basis that a veto would exist if the country's national interests were at stake? That convention has been broken and, therefore, there has been a breach of the constitution. If that breach cannot be repaired, does the Minister agree that the only way that we can be honest with the people is to give them the opportunity to get out of the Common Market?

§ Mr. Hurd
If the Opposition make that an election issue, it will be an election issue. That is up to the Opposition. The statement of the convention was accurately made at that time, and it applied until 18 May. We should have liked to see a clear-cut statement on the future, but we have achieved an agreement to differ—essentially the same as the Luxembourg compromise. We believe that it is on that basis that future decisions should be taken.

§ Mr. Parris
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that we have rot been overruled again since the farm price issue does not mean that the problem has not arisen again, as we may have been more reluctant to pursue our interests uncompromisingly because we were afraid of being overruled?

§ Mr. Hurd
I do not think that that is so. In fact, I cannot think of any example where that could even be suggested.

§ Mr. Faulds
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you know of any other hon. Member who during the last hour, has failed to catch your eye on seven different questions?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that only one other hon. Member rose in his place on seven questions.