Draft Single European Act (Hansard, 3 February 1986)

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the Draft Single European Act final text. I emphasise "final text".

On 18 December, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was discussing the European treaty with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Secretary of State said: It was agreed that we should not speak of the establishment of a European union."—[Official Report, 18 December 1985; Vol. 89, c. 302.] The first paragraph of the preamble to this treaty gives a commitment to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union,… to implement this European Union … and to invest this union with the necessary means of action".

In 1973 we joined the Common Market. At a later stage we had a referendum to sustain membership of the Common Market. The British people have never been asked whether they wish to be dragged unknowingly, unconsulted and unconsenting into a United States of Europe. This text is final and would mean that the United Kingdom would cease to be a sovereign state and would be merely a province of a larger United States of Europe. It is an important issue.

Secondly, as in important issue, it states in this final text that we are convinced that the European idea … and the need for new developments correspond to the wishes of the democratic peoples of Europe, for whom the European Parliament, elected by universal sufferage, is an indispensable means of expression, This is bunk. If, Mr. Speaker, you speak to your constituents, or if I speak to mine, or if one looks at the figures of those who voted for this institution at the last election, there is no doubt that it is bunk. It is not only bunk, because if one looks at article 6 one sees that this dangerous institution is about to be given yet more power.

Throughout the treaty we have talked about the European Assembly. Now, in article 6, we read that "After consulting the Assembly" is to be changed to "in cooperation with the European Parliament". I am not sure 36 what the language means, but I think that a Parliament is different from an assembly, and that co-operation is different from consultation. In this treaty this institution is to be given a great deal of power. As political power and parliamentary power is by and large a zero sum, if more power goes to Strasbourg and Brussels there will be less power here in this Parliament.

This is a matter of such fundamental importance that there is a risk that as a result of this Denmark will feel forced to secede from the European Community. It is urgent because the next business of the House is to consider giving parliamentary approval to an illegal budget passed by the European Assembly. It seems to me that it is the wrong way round for the Government to wish to give money to this bandit institution. Surely we should first discuss in Parliament whether we wish to give more powers to this institution.

As a matter of great urgency the Government have said that they must provide the extra money because they are taking the case to the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice is not only about justice; it is also about the increase of power of European institutions. If the Government first provide more money through Parliament and then say that they want the institution to have more power, and Parliament does not even see fit to discuss that increase in power, what is the outcome likely to be at the European Court?

You are a wise and powerful Speaker, Mr. Speaker. You are here, not to support the Government or their programme, but to support the sovereignty of the House. I implore you to grant leave for this urgent debate to take place.