European Affairs (Hansard, 23 November 2000)

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the House that I have set a limit of 15 minutes for Back-Bench speeches.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you like to reassess the time limit on speeches that you have just announced in light of the fact that there is almost no one on the Government Benches, so you may well be under-subscribed with Members wanting to speak? Would you be prepared to relax your time limit for Members on the packed Opposition Benches, so that they could then make longer speeches to compensate for the complete lack of Government Members?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have never found a shortage of hon. Members wanting to speak on these matters.

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook)
Before I start, I apologise to the House for the fact that I must leave for the Zagreb summit after the opening speeches.

§ Mr. Forth
Oh!

§ Mr. Cook
I should have thought that, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman, everybody in the House would wish success to a summit that brings together the countries of Europe and the western Balkans, including, for the first time, a democratic Serbia.
Only a year ago, both Croatia and Yugoslavia were still led by two Presidents who had presided over the wars between Croats and Serbs in Croatia and throughout Bosnia. It is a measure of the dramatic changes in the region that tonight a democratic Government in Croatia will welcome a new democratic President of Yugoslavia as a partner for progress.
There will of course be a broader range of issues to be discussed at the forthcoming Nice summit, which will, for instance, proclaim the charter of rights as a political declaration.

§ Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Cook
I am anxious to get on to more contentious matters, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
The charter provides a strong, clear statement of rights and freedoms. It meets fully our two negotiating objectives: that civil and political rights are consistent with the European convention on human rights, which Britain helped to write, and the economic and social 452 provisions are tied to national law and practice. It is an excellent statement, which can be supported by anyone who is not opposed to human rights.

§ Sir Michael Spicer
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Cook
Well, if the hon. Gentleman insists on opposing human rights, I will give way to him.

§ Sir Michael Spicer
I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman at this early stage in the debate to express concern about the treaty of Nice. Does he plan to sign that treaty in early December, or will it rumble on, like Maastricht, into the new year? In any event, when does he plan to ratify it?

§ Mr. Cook
It is our intention to negotiate the treaty by 9 December, not to continue into the new year. We cannot of course guarantee that everybody will seek to achieve that agreement, but that is what we aim to do. For reasons that I have explained to the House, it is important for Britain's national interests that we reach agreement at Nice.

§ Sir Michael Spicer
What about ratification?

§ Mr. Cook
We shall seek ratification as soon as it is possible to do so in the House, and we make no bones about that. Sir Michael Spicer: Will it be early in the new year?

§ Mr. Cook
Well, that will depend partly on the signature of the treaty and partly on the time available in the House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I want to have those debates as soon as possible. I look forward to exchanges with him and, in particular, to exposing the fact that the Conservative party really intends to oppose the treaty that paves the way for the enlargement of the European Union.

§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)
Absolutely.

§ Mr. Cook
Well, I have had my answer already. The Conservatives are opposed to the largest, most historic expansion of the EU and to the reforms that will make way for it. Before we have even reached that stage, we have it on record that the Conservatives are against enlargement and will not take the steps necessary for it.
Before I turn to the treaty of Nice, it may be convenient for the House if I deal with the issue of European security, to which the press this week has devoted a gratifying amount of attention.
This is a British initiative and it is a successful British initiative—

§ Mr. Forth
Oh!

§ Mr. Cook
Yes, it is. From the start, our priority has been to keep the initiative focused on improving the military capability for crisis management in Europe. It was Britain that pressed for the headline goal of the capability to put into the field up to 60,000 personnel 453 within 60 days. Britain has a strategic interest in the stability of the continent and, therefore, has a strong national interest in the greater ability of Europe to manage instability in and around Europe. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) yawns with weariness: if that reflects the modem Conservative party's commitment to stability on the continent of Europe, it is a betrayal of two centuries of Conservative party tradition.
Do those former Conservative Ministers who have been so impassioned in criticising the arrangements really believe that the management of crises in Europe was so perfect during their time in office that it could not be improved? Have they forgotten the years of humiliation in Bosnia, when we were part of a protection force that was too small to protect itself, never mind those it was sent to protect? Have they forgotten the massacre at Srebrenica, where 8,000 people were murdered after the protection force was compelled to leave them unprotected? Had we had the ability then to field a rapid reaction force of corps strength, those 8,000 victims might still be alive.

§ Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon)
Many Conservative Members share the objective of European nations being able to do more in defence; the question is whether that is done within NATO, or within the EU and outside NATO. Will the Foreign Secretary explain what the new force will be able to do in the EU and outside NATO that it could not have done had it been formulated within NATO under the arrangements agreed in Berlin in 1996?

§ Mr. Cook
It will be absolutely available to NATO, if NATO chooses to lead an intervention and to carry out an operation in crisis management. The fact is that there have been occasions in the past decade when NATO has chosen not to intervene; indeed, the years of UNPROFOR—the United Nations Protection Force—provide an example of one of the occasions on which NATO, on the whole, chose not to be involved. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be no alternative arrangement in Europe whereby, when NATO chooses not to become involved, Europe can manage crises within its continent.
There is another reason why the initiative is in the British national interest: it is valuable for Britain that other nations have been obliged by the capabilities conference to examine how they can meet the modern requirement for a flexible, mobile, rapid force. Until recently, only Britain and France had such units in strength. It is in Britain's interest that the military burden of future crisis management should be fairly shared with our partners.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)
My right hon. Friend has said that the initiative is remarkable, and I agree, especially in terms of the involvement of Sweden, Finland and the Irish Republic. Have the Governments of any of those three countries voiced any reservations about missions that might take place outwith mainland Europe?

§ Mr. Cook
No. There has been extensive discussion with all four members of the EU that are not members of NATO to ensure that we have secured text that meets their national requirements. My hon. Friend's question 454 highlights one of the most important features of the exercise: it means that the nations themselves will be responsible for whether and to what extent they commit their armies to individual operations. That is valuable to those four nations and to Britain.
Let us have the facts, not the myths. As one informed observer has said: The plan for a European defence identity is not intended to subvert or replace NATO, or to duplicate the huge investment that we and our allies have made in NATO…It is not a plan for a supranational European army under the control of the European Commission: decisions would be taken by Governments; the forces involved would remain national. Those are not my words or those of any of my Labour colleagues. They are not the words of any foreigner whom Conservative Members might view with suspicion. They are the words of Lord Hurd, who was one of the longest-serving Conservative Foreign Secretaries—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might not regard himself as being in the same party as Lord Hurd, but that is an issue that he can take up with Lord Hurd. All week, the rest of the Conservative party has puffed with indignation at the outrage of Europe trying to do more for its own security.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whose presence I always welcome, knows that I follow his words with great care.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Cook
I appreciate that. I give the hon. Gentleman 10 out of 10 for attendance.

§ Mr. Bercow
I am grateful.

§ Mr. Cook
I knew that the hon. Gentleman, with his recent stress on sound education principles, would welcome that. I was struck by his confession during the summer, when he said: The one thing I have learned since the election is that we must not appear as if we are foaming at the mouth. This week, many of his colleagues have forgotten that lesson. The shadow Foreign Secretary knows what humbug his colleagues are talking. After all, he was the Minister with responsibilities for Europe under Lord Hurd. He knows that during that time the Conservatives negotiated the Maastricht treaty, which committed them to the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

§ Mr. Forth
Exactly.

§ Mr. Cook
I am glad that I have the right hon. Gentleman with me.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) knows about that commitment because he was the Conservative Minister who flew over to sign the Maastricht treaty. Yet on Tuesday, he was unable to dissuade the current Leader of the Opposition from telling the nation that the Conservative party would insist that these arrangements are brought back within NATO.
The House will be relieved to hear that the right hon. Gentleman does not need to do that. The arrangements were developed in full consultation and co-operation 455 with NATO. European Union Heads of State and Government have repeatedly said that there will be a European-led operation only where NATO as a whole is not engaged. If NATO does take the lead, the new resources created by these capabilities will be available to NATO. That is why Madeleine Albright welcomed the commitments this week as strengthening, not weakening, the Atlantic alliance.
Conservative Members are within their rights to say that they disagree with the Government's interpretation of the national interest. The purpose of the Chamber is to enable us all to advance our own view of the national interest—that is, the British national interest. I find it strange that so many Conservatives have surfaced during the week to speak for the American national interest. The American President, the American Defence Secretary and the American Secretary of State have all warmly endorsed the European security initiative. How can the representatives of Horsham, West Suffolk and Chesham and Amersham claim to know the American national interest better than the President of America?
The only thing that would put the alliance at risk is the Leader of the Opposition's pledge that the Conservative manifesto will commit Conservatives to break the commitments that Britain made this week. Sixteen of our allies in NATO took part in this week's capabilities conference. How does the Conservative party expect to persuade them that we are breaking the commitments that we gave to them to strengthen our alliance with them?

Several hon.
Members rose—

§ Mr. Cook
I shall give priority to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

§ Mr. Bercow
As the right hon. Gentleman is giving us a lecture about the importance of defence preparations and military co-operation, will he tell us precisely when he abandoned the position that he took at the 1982 Labour party conference, when he said: I come to this rostrum to beg conference, to ask conference, to plead with conference to vote for unilateral nuclear disarmament? When exactly did he change his mind?

§ Mr. Cook
I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I remain committed to the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. We now have the opportunity to aim for that goal by pursuing a multilateral negotiation. I am much prouder of the views that I held in 1982 than the hon. Gentleman should be about his presence in the Monday Club during the same period.

§ Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)
rose—

§ Mr. Cook
If I may, I will press ahead.
If the Conservative party reneges on the commitments that we have made, that would not just be a betrayal of our allies.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)
rose—

§ Mr. Cook
No, I shall make progress.
456 It would be a betrayal also of Britain's interests.

§ Mr. Forth
Rubbish.

§ Mr. Cook
Indeed it would. For two centuries, even the Conservative party has understood that Britain's security is best preserved by maintaining stability on the continent. If the Conservative party abandons that, it is abandoning its own traditions. Nor do we find the Conservative party supporting the British—

§ Mr. Howarth
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Cook
No. I anticipate that Conservative Back Benchers wish me to talk about the treaty of Nice, and I intend to do so. I shall do so because we find that the Conservative party is failing again to support the British national interest on that other big issue before the Nice summit.
This European Council will mark a milestone towards the biggest enlargement in the history of the European Union. It is a historic step. It marks the completion of the reunion of Europe. If the fall of the Berlin wall marked the end of the division of Europe between the two political systems—

§ Mr. Howarth
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary is clearly leaving the question of the Euro army. He has told the House that the Government intend to enter into commitments for the creation of a Euro army to which this country will be bound. Is it in order for him to do that without the authority of Parliament?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is not a point of order but, rather, a point of information.

§ Mr. Cook
While awaiting my opportunity to open the debate, I sat through 20 minutes of Conservative Members complaining about the abuse of Parliament. Nothing better represents the abuse of Parliament than that totally bogus point of order. However, for the edification of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), there will be no question of the Government committing troops to any specific operation without specific debate in the Chamber.
I turn to the treaty of Nice, which we shall negotiate in a weeks' time.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)
rose—

§ Mr. Cook
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to intervene on that matter, and I shall give him time when the opportunity arises.
I stress that the treaty of Nice is about the reunification of Europe and preparing for enlargement of the European Union. Every single Government in the new democracies of central and eastern Europe wants to join the European Union. They see it as the best way to underpin their freedom and stability and the only way to boost inward investment and outward trade, but enlargement will also bring real benefits for existing members. It will make our single market even larger, and give us even greater 457 strength in international trade negotiations and a better capacity to co-operate on tackling common problems such as cross-border crime.
The report on enlargement that will be before the summit gives a positive verdict on the immense effort being made by most candidate countries to get themselves ready for membership. They have met the political criteria, including, in some cases, taking difficult and unpopular steps to protect the rights of minorities. They have faced up to painful and challenging reforms on state ownership and open competition, and are making good progress in transposing European law into their domestic law.
After making all those efforts, the candidate countries will not understand if the European Union itself fails to face up to the reforms that it needs to make so that our decision making will be effective in a Europe of 25 or more member states, rather than only 15. Yet the Conservative party, even before the Nice summit—indeed, even before I reached this passage in my speech—has confirmed that it will oppose those reforms that are necessary for enlargement. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members objecting that the treaty of Nice is not about enlargement. What will be under negotiation at Nice is essential to enlargement. It is essential that we agree on means of limiting the growth of the Commission as a result of enlargement. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst appears to be prepared to contemplate a Commission of more than 30, which is where we would end up under the present rules. It would be more a public meeting than a body capable of taking collective, coherent decisions. It is essential that we redistribute the voting weight in the Council of Ministers.

§ Mr. Forth
No.

§ Mr. Cook
The right hon. Gentleman says no. Well, let me explain. Under the present rules, Britain, France and Germany, after enlargement, would not hold between them even a blocking minority, although they would represent almost half the population of the European Union. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may be prepared to accept that, but it would be an intolerable outcome. [Interruption.] It would be an affront to the democratic values on which the European Union is based. We shall therefore press at Nice for a real increase in the relative vote of Britain. If we succeed, the treaty of Nice will provide for the first ever increase in Britain's vote in the Council.
The treaty of Nice, therefore, is about providing for a stronger Britain in a wider Europe. That is what the Conservative party will oppose.

§ Mr. Bercow
How many vetoes will the Government give up?

§ Mr. Cook
There are some areas in which we want majority voting, because in those areas Britain will do well out of it. Under the present Government, Britain has already done well under majority voting. Over the past two years, we have won 80 decisions on majority voting and we have lost only five. All other major partners have lost more often: France has been outvoted eight times, Spain 11 times, and both Germany and Italy more than 20 times—four times more than Britain.
458 If all those decisions had been taken by unanimity, Britain would have lost every time because one of our partners would have vetoed it. We would not, for example, have secured the new rules on e-commerce, which are to Britain's advantage because British companies have the leading edge in the new technologies.
To take a totally different example—let us see whether the Opposition are interested in this—we could not have secured the new standards on drift nets in response to the concerns of our animal welfare lobby for the dolphins around the British coast. Both of those decisions would have been vetoed if they had been taken by unanimity.

§ Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)
The Government have stated time and again that they wish to retain a veto over our national tax policy. They seem to accept that this House should make tax decisions. Will the Foreign Secretary please explain, then, why the Chancellor had to confirm to me that we need European Union permission to make changes to vehicle excise duty in the pre-Budget statement, changes to VAT on churches and changes to stamp duty? That power has gone recently, under this Government, because the EU has simply asserted the power, without even waiting for the decision on the treaty of Nice. The Government still had the power to make such decisions when they came to office.

§ Mr. Cook
I can only repeat to the House what I have said on many previous occasions: we will not accept majority voting on taxation. I must also say to Opposition Members that this is not an issue on which Britain is isolated or alone; a number of other partner countries stand with us in recognising that taxation is important for the identity of a nation and the characteristics of a state. However, there are other areas—

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

§ Mr. Cook
I must make progress.
I say frankly to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and his colleagues that there are other areas where we will be willing to consider an extension of majority voting. We would like to get rid of other nations' vetoes in areas where we are trying to get a decision in Britain's interest.

§ Mr. Gill
rose—

§ Mr. Cook
I shall conclude this point and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
For example, we would like to get rid of the German veto over free movement of professionals. That would help British companies and professionals who want to work in other European countries. We would like to get rid of the Greek veto on transport liberalisation, which is currently held up because Greece does not want its ferries opened up to competition. I suspect that if there were competition, it would be a net plus for the millions of British travellers who visit Greece.
We would like to get rid of the Spanish and Portuguese veto on financial regulation to make sure that financial controls match the standards of accountancy of the northern states. We would like to get rid of the French veto on some elements of our common approach towards 459 the World Trade Organisation, so that we could secure a less protectionist negotiating position on audio-visual services.
In all those cases, a shift to majority voting would be in the British national interest. Conservative Members must explain why they want a British negotiating position to preserve the German veto, the Greek veto, the Spanish veto and the French veto to block decisions in Britain's interest.

§ Mr. Gill
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. Is it still the view of his Department that, as stated in a letter of 13 July from one of the officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Unlike the Maastricht or Amsterdam IGCs, this IGC will not be about increasing the powers of the Union? Is that still the Foreign Office view? Will the Foreign Secretary give us a categoric assurance that the treaty will not increase the powers of the Union?

§ Mr. Cook
Yes. It is one of our positions on competencies right from the start that the treaty is not about extending the competence of the European Union. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support when we report our success on that point after Nice.
There are areas that we believe are so central to the identity of the nation and the character of the state that unanimity is the appropriate basis for decision. We set them out in our White Paper at the start of the year. They are treaty change, taxation, border controls, social security, defence and the EU' s revenue. On none of those do we intend to accept majority voting. Our position on that has not changed in the nine months since February, when we printed the White Paper, and will not change in the 14 days until Nice.

§ Mr. Cash
On 22 May 1997, in an article that I know the Foreign Secretary will have read carefully, he clearly stated: On defence, the French and Germans want the Western European Union to be merged into the EU. This would undermine NATO. Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that position now that the WEU has been abolished?

§ Mr. Cook
I fully maintain our position that we will not undermine NATO. That is why, throughout the past two years—1998, 1999 and 2000—ever since we launched the St. Malo initiative, Britain has been careful to ensure at every step that nothing we did undermined NATO. As a result of those measures, the European Union now has a stronger relationship with NATO and with its non-EU members. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will support the initiative.
We look forward to negotiating a treaty at Nice that will deliver two strategic objectives of Britain in Europe: reform of its institutions and enlargement of its membership. If we succeed, that will represent a good outcome for the dozen candidate countries and a good deal for Britain.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham, has committed his party to a referendum on the Nice treaty and a campaign to stop it. It is brass neck on the Conservatives' part to claim to be the party of the 460 referendum. In their long years in office, they never once gave the British public a referendum on anything. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain why he believes that the treaty of Nice demands a referendum, but never thought to offer the public one before he signed the Maastricht treaty. With that signature, he signed away the British veto on 30 different articles. I can predict now that, whatever the outcome at Nice, we will not match the figure of 30 increases in majority voting to which he signed up at Maastricht. I do not intend to match his performance as an architect of more majority voting.
It is self-serving nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to argue that when a Conservative Government agreed to majority voting, it served Britain's interest, but when this Government agree to a smaller amount of majority voting, it is a dangerous measure of integration. It is also damaging nonsense. Opposing the Nice treaty will simultaneously isolate Britain within the existing European Union and leave it without a friend among the candidate countries. No wonder that, when the former chairman of the Tory group in the European Parliament defected this week, he said: Conservative influence on the Continent is now probably at the lowest level since the Napoleonic War. Mr. Newton Dunn is obviously a man of sweeping historic perspective as well as wisdom.

§ Mr. Robathan
Mr. Newton Dunn is an MEP for my region and I listened to his justification for being chosen as a Conservative MEP. As he is not a Member of the House, I think that I can accuse him of having lied. He stated categorically that he had changed his view on Europe from that which had held previously and that he was now committed to the Conservative party view. The Foreign Secretary may use him to justify his case, but I assure him that the people who voted for Mr. Newton Dunn were lied to.

§ Mr. Cook
I think that all Labour Members who heard those comments will include them in their election addresses as a warning not to believe a Conservative candidate.

§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe)
I do not think that the Foreign Secretary can intrude into any debate on this matter, but I should like to let him know that I was present at the meeting to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred. Those present at the meeting, which was held during the selection process, were not lied to by my former colleague, Mr. Bill Newton Dunn, for whom I still have considerable regard and respect.

§ Mr. Cook
The House will accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, which he makes with sincerity.
At some point in the next decade, the dozen or more candidate countries will join us around the table at the European Union. One reason why we want Britain to be a champion of enlargement is that we want those countries to remember Britain as an advocate and an ally of enlargement. I do not want them to remember Britain as the country that most strongly opposed the reforms necessary for enlargement. I want Britain to be still at the table when they join. However, the logic of Conservative policy is that we would have been long gone.
461 Lord Tebbit let the cat out of the bag on Tuesday when taking part in the celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the resignation of Lady Thatcher.

§ Mr. Forth
The lamentations.

§ Mr. Cook
Or, in the case of Lord Tebbit and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the lamentations over her resignation. Lord Tebbit said of current Conservative policy—[Interruption.] At last, I have united the Opposition behind a Government proposal. Lord Tebbit said of current Conservative policy in Europe: We both have doubts as to whether our partners will agree to having us "in" if we are not to be ruled "by". That of course raises the question should we be in or should we be out? The "we" at the start of that quotation refers to Lord Tebbit and Lady Thatcher. The past week has shown once again how, 10 years after Lady Thatcher resigned, what she thinks today, Conservative Members will think tomorrow. Nobody tries to catch up faster with Lady Thatcher's views than Lord Tebbit's replacement, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith).

§ Mr. Bercow
A great man.

§ Mr. Cook
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green is certainly typical of the modern Conservative Front Bench. Yesterday, during the statement on European defence, there was a revealing moment when he described Europe as "over there", which is how the Americans used to refer to Europe. Plainly, in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, what separates Britain from the continent is not a channel, but an ocean. Europe is not over there.

§ Mr. Cash
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary is deliberately misrepresenting what is in Hansard.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that what the Foreign Secretary is saying is not deliberately misleading.

§ Mr. Cash
I shall rephrase that by saying that the Foreign Secretary is misunderstanding what was said in yesterday's debate. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Defence Secretary, made it clear in an intervention after he was accused by the Defence Secretary of referring to "over there" as the continent—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Once again, this is a point of information rather than a point of order.

§ Mr. Cash
It all appears in Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green meant the other side of the House.

§ Mr. Cook
I am neither misunderstanding nor misrepresenting the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green: I am quoting him. He did say "over there" yesterday. Europe is not over there. Britain is part of Europe, and it is in our interest that we are a leading partner in it. The stronger Europe is in the world, the 462 stronger will be Britain. The more Europe embraces economic reform, the more prosperous will be Britain. The more Europe co-operates to defeat organised crime, the safer will be the streets of Britain. The more successful Europe is in the negotiations to halt climate change, the better will be Britain's environment. The greater Europe's military capacity for crisis management, the greater will be the security of Britain.
That is why the Government believe that Britain's place is not just in Europe, but in playing a leading part in Europe, setting the agenda and securing Britain's interests in Europe, as we will do at Nice. By contrast, the Conservative party is embracing policies that are a betrayal of Britain's strategic interests and would end up with a Britain marginalised and possibly excluded from a European Union that will soon stretch from the Atlantic ocean to the Black sea.

§ Mr. Robathan
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Cook
No, I will not. I keep reading that the Conservative party thinks that this is its trump card. If it is, it should play it as often as it can because, if that is the choice that it offers the electorate at the general election, it will lose and we will win.

§ Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham)
When we last debated these matters in June, the Foreign Secretary was, we later understood, unfortunately unable to deliver his speech in full as the result of pressure from on high. Time will tell whether what we heard today is his full speech or just the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expurgated highlights.
Last weekend, the Foreign Secretary was good enough to let the world know that he hoped the Chancellor would remember that he is not the Prime Minister. Perhaps in future he should let him know that he is not his sub-editor either, and that Britain expects to have a Foreign Secretary who is big enough and serious enough to decide for himself what he says to the House of Commons.
This has been a shabby start to the debate—a shabby speech. It is increasingly interesting to see how the Government are trying to frame the debate about the European Union. As time goes on—we have had a flavour of this today—anyone who disagrees with the Government's view of the future of Europe is written off as anti-European and, as the Foreign Secretary has said, as peddling lurid scare stories. We hear increasingly the authentic tone of a Government who are deeply out of touch with the people whom they govern—condescending about their concerns and contemptuous of their aspirations. Never has there been a Government so adamantly convinced that the men and women in Whitehall know best—although yesterday it seemed that the men and women in Whitehall do not altogether know what it is that they think is best.
The subject of the everything but arms agreement came up twice yesterday. It would be helpful if the Foreign Secretary could clear this matter up, as we have been given some confusing signals. At Question Time yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Development made her position absolutely clear when she talked about
Pascal Lamy's proposal, which we strongly support. 463 A few minutes later, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who asked about this subject, the Prime Minister said: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, yes, we are concerned about the proposal.—[Official Report, 22 November 2000: Vol. 357, c. 293-307.] Which is it? Are the Government concerned about it or do they strongly support it?
The Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs earlier this week. He started off by saying: This is not a matter for the General Affairs Council. He was apparently unaware that Pascal Lamy had made a presentation about precisely this matter at the General Affairs Council on 9 October, which, according to the minutes of the meeting, the right hon. Gentleman had attended. One Minister says that the Government support the proposal strongly and another is concerned about it, so we looked to see what the Foreign Secretary said about it. He said: It is a very major issue…I am unsighted on this. So that clears that up. What a magisterial position that is—yet another bit of paperwork down at the bottom of the Red Box that the Foreign Secretary did not quite get to.
The Government will say anything and do anything to hide the truth. They will go to any lengths to distort what is happening, and have no shame about standing on their head if that serves their purpose. It is worth reflecting on the recent furore over passports. That is not in itself the biggest issue, but it is indicative of how the Government operate and what they do.
The fact that the European Commission was considering harmonising the design of national passports across the European Union was revealed in The Mail on Sunday—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait, because this incident becomes more revealing later on. The Mail on Sunday had picked up the story from a publication called the European Voice. Not surprisingly there was a storm of protest. Commissioner Kinnock came on the scene, and he described the report as rubbish. Without bothering to find out whether there was any basis to it, he decided to complain on the radio about
the perpetual disservice done to the readers of several British newspapers…who continually pump out this bilge which simply doesn't have a basis.
The Government contended that the report was untrue—a lurid scare story, in the Foreign Secretary's language. Unhappily for them, it soon emerged that it was true, as a couple of telephone calls could have confirmed. The Commissioner was indeed considering precisely such a proposal, as the Minister for Europe has subsequently admitted. In a statement that will have given pleasure to all his many friends, he said: We are grateful to the readers of the Mail on Sunday for letting us hear their views on this matter and congratulate you— congratulate The Mail on Sunday that is—
for running this story.
Could this be the same media whose coverage of Europe the Prime Minister described two days later as anti-European and fundamentally dishonest?

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz)
The right hon. Gentleman failed to quote the end of the article. I told The Mail on Sunday that it should not have run the story, because there was no proposal; there was only an idea put up by one official.

§ Mr. Maude
It is hard to see how adding any context to the statement
We…congratulate you for running this story could make a radical difference to the meaning. Anyway, what problem do the Government have with a press that actually wants to tell people what is happening in the world? It is time for some honesty. Why cannot the Government be as straightforward about their plans as are their counterparts elsewhere?
The Prime Minister says that he wants Europe to be a super-power, not a super-state. A few weeks ago, I publicly offered a bottle of champagne to anyone who could convincingly distinguish between the two. The House may not be surprised to learn that it has not been awarded, or even claimed. I rather expected the Foreign Secretary or the Minister for Europe to claim it, but neither has done so.
We are talking about a project involving a President who describes himself as running the Government of Europe. It has its own currency, it will have an army, and it has its own anthem and flag. Commissioners plan to introduce a single passport. A European constitution is planned. It is not clear to most people how all that cannot be intended to constitute a state. They listen to what is said by others in Europe, who make no bones about their plans for a relentless further programme of political integration.
The Government should understand that most people in Britain do not want to be part of the European super-state. Those people are not anti-European, extreme or xenophobic; they are not little Englanders. The mainstream majority of the public are becoming pretty irritated by patronising, offensive Ministers who describe them as such.
Four major projects are afoot, and the Government want Britain to be committed uncritically to all four. They are the euro, the charter of fundamental rights, the European army, and a further move towards political integration at Nice. But there is a better vision than that, which is more in tune with the modern world of globalisation and networks. It is a vision of a flexible Europe, a multi-system Europe, enlarged to embrace the whole family of European nations and to heal the divide that disfigured Europe throughout the cold war and is still shamefully unhealed.
What is so disillusioning for people here in Britain who take a warm, generous, internationalist view is the discovery that the Government are not even trying to achieve that. They are still locked in a time warp—locked into the old cold war bloc mentality, and the outdated dogma of "one size fits all" uniform integration across Europe.

§ Mr. Redwood
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Government return from Nice having sacrificed 15, 20 or more vetoes, and having accepted a dangerous charter that is a model for a constitution for Britain and for Europe—along with many other moves towards the creation of an integrated super-state—the Conservative 465 party will oppose all that vigorously in the House, and that we will demand a referendum because we think that the British people should have the right to decide?

§ Mr. Maude
Let me make it clear, as I have done before, that we will oppose a Nice treaty that is integrationist.

§ Mr. Robin Cook
rose—

§ Mr. Maude
If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to respond to our invitation and say that the Government will not try to ratify the treaty without seeking the consent of the British public in a referendum, I shall be happy to give way so that he can tell us what his position is. If he proposes to try to ratify the treaty before an election, without seeking public consent in either an election or a referendum, let him say so.

§ Mr. Cook
The treaty of Nice will be entirely consistent with the basis on which we fought the last election—the reform and enlargement of Europe. There is no case for a separate referendum. [Interruption.] There is no such case. As a matter of fact, it is our party that is going into an election offering the people of Britain a referendum on the euro. The Conservative party is denying them a choice.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can make one thing clear. According to his figures, the treaty may involve an increase in majority voting in 15 articles. Why does that require a referendum, given that the Maastricht treaty, which contained 30 such articles, did not?

§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)
An election has taken place between the two events.

§ Mr. Maude
That is true. Furthermore—in a sense, this is precisely the point that the Foreign Secretary has made—we have already lost the veto in many areas. There is no great enlightenment in that regard; it is merely a question of how much more we can lose.
I shall deal with the whole issue of qualified majority voting and its implications for European unity and harmony. Let me begin by nailing the Foreign Secretary's contention that the Nice summit, and the Nice treaty, are about enlargement. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for reform of the Commission and reweighting of votes, and I agree that those things are desirable. They could easily be negotiated as a ring-fenced set of arrangements, and we would strongly support the Government if they achieved agreement on that. It is not right, however, to say that those things are essential to enlargement, and it is certainly not correct to say that the real roadblock on the way to enlargement is the lack of qualified majority voting.
This intergovernmental conference is about political integration—nakedly so—and the only Government who maintain that it is not are this Government. If it were seriously about enlargement, it would tackle the real roadblock: the common agricultural policy. We look in vain for any proposals for the radical reform that would enable enlargement to go ahead quickly. We find that the present Government, for all their protestations about enlargement, have done nothing to put it on to the agenda.
466 The Foreign Secretary has said again today that the Government will not accept the loss of the veto on immigration, on defence, on treaty change, on social security and on tax—although, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the European Union institutions are already asserting their ability to make tax proposals based on qualified majority voting.
The Government have—I hope—made it clear, in their February White Paper, that they will not agree to the establishment of a European public prosecutor. There is no great drama about that. Not even a Government as out of touch as ours would risk agreeing to such proposals in the months preceding a general election.
We know what will happen at Nice. There will be a carefully stage-managed row. Mr. Alastair Campbell will emerge to tell a breathlessly waiting press corps that the Prime Minister has stood up for Britain manfully, and has rejected proposals to which there was never the slightest chance of the Government's agreeing in the first place. What will happen is agreement to a significant extension of the areas decided by qualified majority voting.
The Foreign Secretary raised the whole issue of the veto over financial regulation. Is he seriously telling the House that he is prepared to contemplate allowing Europe-wide financial regulation to be imposed by qualified majority voting, and to contemplate the creation of a Euro-SEC over which we would have no veto? Does he really believe that that is in the interests of London, the pre-eminent international financial centre in the world? Is that what he is proposing?

§ Mr. Cook
No, and it is not in the treaty. Financial regulation in the treaty means regulation of the financial affairs of the European Union. I would have expected the right hon. Gentleman to support us in seeking tougher, stricter financial regulation.

§ Mr. Maude
We think that the further extension of qualified majority voting is wrong. It is wrong not just for Britain, but for Europe. If Ministers are interested in European harmony and unity, the worst thing to do in the world as it is today is to extend the areas in which a majority can impose its will on the minority. That is divisive, not unifying. Relentless political integration is the enemy of European unity, not its friend.

§ Mr. Giles Radice (North Durham)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Maude
No. I will carry on with my speech.
If it is so difficult to force decisions through that mincing machine, the answer is not to increase the speed of the mincer, but to try to force less through it. The agenda at Nice should not be about relentless further political integration. It should be about creating the wider, more flexible multi-system Europe that the public in Britain want.

§ Mr. Radice
The right hon. Gentleman has waxed eloquent about qualified majority voting, but I have just done some research. I should like to quote from him when he was a Minister, not in opposition: There are many lively discussions in Brussels and the number of times that we are isolated is small. We have extremely good arguments and we win most of them. The number of times that we are in the minority and are out-voted is tiny.—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 103.] 467 That is just what the Foreign Secretary has told him. He knows it to be true. Why is he talking such nonsense in the House today?

§ Mr. Maude
Everyone has accepted that, to create the single market, which is where we principally gave up the right of veto, there was a strong case for doing that. I negotiated many of the single market measures. We did so extremely effectively. If we were seldom outvoted, it was because of the extreme skill with which those matters were conducted.

§ Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)
rose—

§ Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow)
rose—

§ Mr. Bercow
rose—

§ Mr. Maude
I give way to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Bercow
The Foreign Secretary is extraordinarily insouciant about the level of European Union interference in our affairs. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to figures provided by the House of Commons Library, no fewer than 4,065 directives, regulations and decisions from the European Union have impacted on this country in 1998, 1999 and 2000? Does he not agree that the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam, so lauded and magnified by the Foreign Secretary, has done nothing to arrest the process of European integration? Rather, it has given the green light to its continuation.

§ Mr. Maude
My hon. Friend should place those figures on the table of the House, so that they can be studied properly.

§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
The right hon. Gentleman does not understand them.

§ Mr. Maude
I understand them perfectly well. They make precisely my point, which is that more and more is being forced into the mincing machine. The complaint is that the mincing machine cannot cope with it. The lesson that we should draw from that is that the European Union should be doing less. It should restrict its ambitions and do what it has to do properly.
Let us be blunt about it: much of what the European Union still does is done badly; particularly much of what the European Commission does. If it concentrated its efforts on getting right what it is meant to do right, instead of supporting ever more political integration, it would be a better European Union, better serving the people of Europe.

§ Mr. Rammell
rose—

§ Dr. Palmer
rose—

§ Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)
rose—

§ Mr. Maude
I give way to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)

§ Mr. Rammell
We have just heard the right hon. Gentleman's mea culpa for why he gave away the veto 468 42 times during the Single European Act. May we now have the litany of excuses about why he gave it away 30 times during the Maastricht treaty?

§ Mr. Maude
I am not sure that that is worthy of an answer. I will proceed with what we are facing at the Nice summit.

§ Mr. Heald
Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Maude
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to make a little progress.
I move to something else that the Foreign Secretary will deal with at the Nice summit: the charter of fundamental rights, about which he spoke a little. On that, too, Ministers are playing the straw man game: elevate a possibility that they know will not happen and then claim credit for beating it down. Last weekend, they briefed the press that, against all opposition, they had ensured that the charter would not be part of the treaty—it would not be incorporated in the treaty—but that has been clear for some time. It is clear that no one really presses for it to be part of the treaty any longer. Why? Because it is now abundantly clear that, whether or not it is part of the treaty, it will be mandatory.
Ministers say that it will not be mandatory, but they should take account of what the Commission has said. In its formal communication on the legal nature of the charter of fundamental rights, it says that it can reasonably be expected that the charter will become
mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law. Effectively, it is saying that it does not mind whether it is in the treaty or not. It would prefer it to be, for reasons of visibility and clarity. It goes on to say: It is therefore preferable for the sake of visibility and certainty as to the law for the charter to be mandatory in its own right and not just through its judicial interpretation. Ministers talking about excluding the charter from the treaty is a matter of supreme irrelevance because it will be legally binding, one way or another.

§ Mr. Cash
rose—

§ Mr. Heald
rose—

§ Mr. Maude
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

§ Mr. Heald
Is it not the case that, under article 6.2 of the Amsterdam treaty, the fundamental rights must be respected? What the charter does is to define them. Therefore, they will be mandatory on member states in so far as they are implementing European law. There is no doubt about it. In fact, article 51 of the charter says so.

§ Mr. Maude
My hon. Friend is completely right. There is only one group of people in Europe who argue that the thing will not be mandatory. Many people here are clear that it will be mandatory. The Commission is clear that it will be.

§ Mr. MacShane
The Germans, the French, the Dutch.

§ Mr. Maude
The hon. Gentleman is quoting people who do not want the charter to be in the treaty. There may 469 be plenty of people who do not want it be in the treaty. That is not the point. They are all saying that it will be mandatory anyway, precisely because of what the European Commission is saying. If it is now being seriously argued in the House that the European Commission has it fundamentally wrong, that its reading of the law is completely wrong and that it will not import it into law, the European Council will not and the European Court will not, that is a new contention.
I note that the Foreign Secretary is not seeking to intervene to say that the European Commission in its formal communication has it wrong. Why will he not do it? Because he knows that it is the truth. The truth is that the charter will become binding. So much for the Minister for Europe's facile claim that it will be of no more value than the Beano. If it is of no more use than the Beano, why are Ministers so enthusiastic about it? Why do they want to proclaim it? Why do they not go there to proclaim the Beano? Would that not be as much use?

§ Dr. Palmer
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Maude
I will make some progress at this stage.
I turn to the European army. It is here that the Government have been most recently found out. Let us face it: it has been a bad week for the Government. When the Foreign Secretary talked about their headline goal, I do not think that he thought he would have the headlines that he has had this week. I do not mind them having a bad week. I am keen on them having many bad weeks, but it has also been a bad week for Britain. I do mind about that.
It is not about whether we support greater European defence capability or greater defence co-operation. We all support that. That is motherhood and apple pie, but we already have a European defence organisation. It is called NATO. It has existed for more than 50 years. It has created the habit of us working closely together. It has engendered trust between the European military establishments. It has been the principal means by which America has remained engaged in our continent. It ensures that European countries such as Turkey and Norway whose commitment to the alliance is strategically crucial remain fully engaged. It is flexible. Look at Kosovo, where the composition of KFOR includes Swedes, Finns and Austrians, who are outside NATO. It already is flexible. It is already capable of doing everything that is claimed for the rapid reaction force.
There are real concerns that the proposals will undermine and divide NATO. What was the Foreign Secretary's response to the concerns? He described them as
lurid claims…euro scare tactics.
The Prime Minister said that the concerns are "fundamentally dishonest". Those are harsh words from someone for whom a rigid adherence to the truth is an unshakeable maxim. The Defence Secretary, in his ineffably patronising manner, says that people are over-excited and that it is all an anti-European scare story.
Unfortunately for them, however, the range of serious people opposed to the development includes many who could not by the wildest of standards be described as anti-European, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), Lord Carrington, Lord Healey, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and even Lord Owen. 470 The Foreign Secretary might have forgotten this, but Lord Owen left the Labour party not because it was too pro-European, but—the exact reverse—because it was too anti-European.
Those people all make the same point: nothing about the scheme is being done for military or defence reasons; it is all about politics. It is about endowing the European Union with another of the trappings of statehood. It is part of the path to the super-state.
President Chirac of France said that the European Union
cannot fully exist until it possesses autonomous—
note that word; autonomous from NATO—
capacity for action in the area of defence.
He also described the creation of the European army as a "milestone" in the development of a European political union.
Only the British Government deny that it is being done for political reasons. All their partners and colleagues in the other member states of the European Union say that it is being done for political reasons. They do not seek to hide it. They think that it is a good thing. The British Government, however, know that the British public do not agree with it, and therefore try to hide the truth—that it is part of a political union and a drive to further political integration.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Maude
I shall make some progress, if I may.
The Government even deny that it is intended to be a European army. But they reckoned, of course, without the obliging Mr. Prodi, who has been forthright as ever. Memorably, he has said: When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have decided to take that advice, although they have not yet chosen to call it Mary-Ann or Margaret, which were the alternative names proposed by Mr. Prodi. Nevertheless, it is quite clear what Mr. Prodi was saying. He was saying that it should be a European army, that it is a European army, and that it is being established to give the European Union more of the trappings of statehood. Undoubtedly Mr. Prodi was in league with the anti-European press to generate scare stories, to sell more newspapers.
Let us be clear about it. European defence co-operation is a good thing. Greater European defence capability—which this project will not deliver—would be even better, but that should be done within NATO, not outside it. We will work to bring the arrangements back within NATO, where they belong.
The super-state agenda of relentless political integration is an outdated dogma that belongs to yesterday. In the era of globalisation, a modern Europe needs flexibility, democratic accountability and legitimacy. We want to see a great move forward, with an enlarged European Union at last embracing the whole family of European nations. That entails a more flexible, not a more rigid European Union. Where there are failed centralised policies—such as the
471 common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and the disgracefully badly managed European Union aid programme—much more decision making should be returned to the member states.
There is a real case and a real chance that if Britain were to make the case for that modern, multi-system European Union, it could succeed. The mainstream majority of the British public want, and the modern world requires, that type of European Union. If the Government would only acknowledge it, that is what the outcome of the Danish referendum makes a bit more likely. That is the dream that Britain has nursed for decades—of a Europe of close co-operation between independent nation states growing more prosperous together, with war between us unthinkable.
What a tragedy it is that the Government just let the case go by default. Rather than a forthright call to action, we see the slithering and the weaselly contortions of a Government acting by stealth to do what they know the public would reject. People are getting sick of it. They are getting sick of the Government. Happily, they will soon have the chance to get rid of them.

§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
One of the key roles of the Foreign Affairs Committee is to hold hearings with the Foreign Secretary before any European Council. We did so on Tuesday. I am grateful that the Leader of the House, in response to an appeal from the Foreign Affairs Committee, arranged this debate two days after those hearings, so that the transcript could inform this debate.
It is extraordinarily difficult to have a rational debate on Europe given the extremism within the Conservative party and, alas, in the majority of the British press. For example, in one of the few mentions of the Foreign Affairs Committee's hearings on Tuesday, The Daily Telegraph—a serious newspaper—alleged that one of the members was sleeping and implied that it was sad that we did not savage the Foreign Secretary, but instead had a reasoned and reasonable discussion with him.
I fear that the possibility of a reasoned debate on Europe will become even less likely as we approach a general election, as the main Opposition party regard the issue as perhaps the only one on which it has even the semblance of a chance of connecting with public opinion. Conservative Members, in grand terms, portray progress as the loss of our liberty and as foreigners telling us what to do and generally stabbing us in the back. That is clearly a distortion of the truth.
The essence of the Nice Council is a preparation for enlargement, dealing with the leftovers of Amsterdam. Surely every reasonable person must agree that institutions devised for the group of the six first members will in no way be fitted to a group of 26 or 30. It is wrong to declare oneself in favour in principle of enlargement, but, at the same time, to block the very institutional changes that are necessary to provide the platform for that enlargement.
The vision of Europe described by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is shared only by him and other Conservative Members. If they persist in that vision, they will be left on a sandbank as Europe passes 472 them by. Alas, however, should they ever be in government, Europe will pass the British Government by. That would be bad for this country, and it is hardly anti-patriotic to say so.
The right hon. Member for Horsham also spoke of a bad week for Britain in defence. I remind him—I hope that he has some humility about it—that 10 October was a bad day for him. On that day, there was the unhappy coincidence in which he went to Paris to speak to IFRI, when he said that the defence proposals were being driven by a "cancer of anti-Americanism", whereas a couple of hours earlier, on that very same day, the United States Secretary of Defence gave "wholehearted" support for those very same proposals. Is it not just a little patronising to believe that one can know the interests of the United States better than the United States itself does?

§ Mr. Maude
I am not particularly concerned about the interests of the United States, but I am concerned about the interests of Europe, in terms of America remaining firmly engaged in, and committed to, Europe. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that there is deep concern among Americans—privately expressed by many of them, but also, increasingly, publicly expressed—he has not done his research properly. Even Secretary Cohen, in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred, commented that the proposal would be unsatisfactory. He said that it would be absurd
if NATO and the EU were to proceed along the path of relying on autonomous force planning structures.
However, that is being put in place.

§ Mr. Anderson
Of course there will be different views in the United States, because it is a great and vibrant democracy. However, I do not quote whispers made behind backs by individual Congressmen. I quote the US Administration. I shall let the words speak for themselves. Secretary Cohen said in Birmingham on 10 October: Let me be clear on America's position. We agree with this goal—not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction. The US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, said on Monday: It is a strongly positive development we wholly support…It is a key feature of the European Security and Defence Identity, a NATO initiative that the US has supported wholeheartedly. How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that the proposal is a "cancer of anti-Americanism", when the US recognises it for what it is: an essay in burden sharing, something for which it has been pressing for a very long time? When Baroness Thatcher talked airily this week about the English-speaking peoples speaking together, she was talking not about countries such as Nigeria, but about the transatlantic relationship. Alas, it takes two to tango, and it is clear that the US Administration takes a very different view of the development from hers.

§ Mr. Maples
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Anderson
No, I want to make progress. Lord Robertson said that
a European force would produce "added capability" for NATO.
473 I remind the Opposition of what Lord Hurd said in the Financial Times in February this year: Now, at last, a project has been launched. It is a strong British interest that it succeeds. That was the voice of the old Conservatives until, alas, the Conservative party was taken over—on the Front Bench and elsewhere—by those whose paternity the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) questioned.
However, if we are to have a rational debate, I must acknowledge that there are genuine concerns about the development. On the question of capability, is Europe prepared to go beyond grand declarations and provide the resources? Will Europe deliver on the financial side? There have clearly been deficiencies in the past, but I invite hon. Members to look at the latest report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which states that
Eleven out of the 16 European allies in NATO (including the UK) are spending more on defence. Countries such as the Netherlands are specifically citing this new European dimension as a reason to justify their increased expenditure on defence.
On intelligence, there are concerns that the European Union is a leaky organisation, that there is not an adequate building, and that there are problems with interpreters and with classified documents. Those issues must be addressed. There are also problems about the institutional linking of NATO and the European Union. I am glad that we in the United Kingdom, in the military committee of the EU, are double-hatting, so that our people on the relevant NATO committees will also serve on the EU committee, ensuring that there is no duplication.
I also take seriously the joint letter from Lords Carrington, Healey and Owen and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, published in The Daily Telegraph this week, which, although negative in tone, ends by urging "the utmost caution" in proceeding. That is a proper theme. If the proposal is to proceed, it will need careful planning, and we must make haste slowly.
Countries that are part of NATO but not of the EU also have relevant interests. Turkey will provide between 5,000 and 6,000 members of its own forces, as discussed at the capability conference earlier this week. All the candidate countries agreed to provide forces at the conference. It would be absurd, now that Europe is coalescing and working round this new joint initiative bringing together non-EU NATO members and others, if we were to follow the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition and withdraw from it. That would cause immense anger and disappointment among countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, which we shall regard as allies when, we hope, they join the European Union in the next few years. We need to work with them, not annoy them by making frivolous, anti-European gestures.
A valuable element of our meeting with the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday was the opportunity that it gave us to clarify certain problems, and raise certain other questions. I shall go through the leftovers from Amsterdam, and highlight some of the elements that emerged from our meeting on Tuesday. On the dual majority, it appears clear that the Government's No. 1 priority is to increase our vote in the Council, so that there would no longer be the need for a dual majority. It is 474 reported that France is opposed to that. Although I do not expect the Minister of State to reveal our negotiating brief, I hope that he will be able to comment on the issue.
The Foreign Secretary said that it would be difficult if we were to end up with 26 or 27 Commissioners. The likely outcome of Nice is that every country will have one Commissioner. Are there any circumstances in which the United Kingdom would agree to a proposal not to have a Commissioner?
There appears to be a further change in the Government's position on the target dates for enlargement. In the past, we have said that it would be wrong to name specific target dates, but the Prime Minister seemed to go beyond that in his Warsaw speech, saying that he wanted new member states to participate in European parliamentary elections in 2004. Now, on Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary suggested that he hopes that there will be a consensus on target dates by the Gothenburg Council in June next year. On enhanced co-operation, the Foreign Secretary envisages a right of appeal in respect of the pillar 1 activities, rather than the veto that we have now.
There is a serious problem about parliamentary oversight of the new defence arrangement. The next intergovernmental conference, probably in 2004 or 2005, should look at the Prime Minister's idea, which he put forward in Warsaw, of a second chamber. Until then, there will be a serious void, a deficit, in the parliamentary accountability of the new defence arrangements. Of course, we have scrutiny in member states, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has properly stressed that the new arrangements are intergovernmental.
We need some means of establishing democratic oversight at European level, perhaps by building on the Western European Union Assembly and bringing in the European Parliament and other candidate countries. The Dutch have proposed that, at least, a declaration that that issue will be examined by the Swedish presidency is on the agenda for Nice. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept that this is a real problem for us as parliamentarians and democrats, and I hope that he will ensure that it is seriously debated soon.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)
On Monday, at about lunchtime, I walked unhindered and unhampered through the Brandenburg gate. That would not have been possible 12 years ago. Indeed, if the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, had had her way, it would not be possible today either, because she opposed German reunification.

§ Mr. Redwood
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Campbell
No.
We can now move freely through Berlin, and many candidate countries from the former Warsaw pact want to become members of the European Union

§ Mr. Redwood
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman should contain himself for a moment.
475 The circumstances that I have described are related to the fact that the two great institutions of the post-war period—NATO and the European Union—provided military strength and political and economic strength. They preserved the peace and brought stability, democracy and economic success to part of the continent of Europe—

§ Mr. Redwood
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Campbell
Not for the moment.
The continent of Europe was twice brought to the brink of destruction by nationalism and conflict in the 20th century.

§ Mr. Redwood
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

§ Mr. Campbell
I will give way in a moment: the right hon. Gentleman should contain himself.
The two great institutions have been complementary. Their success has been based on a mixture of the visionary and the pragmatic. Both have contributed to the present circumstances in Europe, and it is true to say that the cold war was a necessary element in the evolution of Europe to what it is today. In acknowledging NATO's importance, we acknowledge the fact that the cold war had to be conducted in the way that it was, and that the west, under the leadership of the United States, had to show the resolution that it did. However, it is vital that we accept that that period is now over. Different considerations now apply, not least when we consider what should be the proper way to achieve the necessary security in regard to both the transatlantic relationship and to those former Warsaw pact countries that now belong to NATO and aspire to join the European Union.

§ Mr. Redwood
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct the record. I am sure that he did not mean to say that Baroness Thatcher and her Government were against German reunification. The policy of that Government was to welcome reunification. More importantly, it was Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, and President Reagan, who stood strong for the west to bring the Berlin wall down. It would not have come down if the west had not followed the policies of those two leaders, and Baroness Thatcher deserves some tribute from this House for the magnificent work that she did.

§ Mr. Campbell
The record shows that the then Prime Minister's attitude towards Chancellor Kohl and German reunification was one not of support but of opposition. There is much evidence that she was reluctant—

§ Mr. Maude
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Campbell
No, not for the moment.

§ Mr. Maude
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has said that he is not willing to give way to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude).

§ Mr. Radice
rose․

§ Mr. Campbell
I will give way to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice).

§ Mr. Radice
Conservative Members are questioning the version of events offered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but they have only to read Mrs. Thatcher's memoirs. She makes it absolutely clear that she was totally against German reunification, but had to accept that the United States, France and Germany were in favour of it. Because for once she did not want to be totally isolated, she went along with those countries and supported reunification, albeit with great misgivings.

§ Mr. Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that I consider to be corroborative of my statement, for which there are many other sources of support.

§ Mr. Maude
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution does him no credit whatsoever. A cursory examination of the record shows that Baroness Thatcher's Government supported German reunification. I can say that with some authority, as I was Minister with responsibility for Europe at the time.

§ Mr. Campbell
I certainly accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he was in favour of German reunification, and that the Government of whom he was a member had to accept that reunification in the end. However, I do not demur from my earlier statement that Lady Thatcher originally opposed German reunification.
I was speaking about the contribution made by the two great institutions, NATO and the European Union. Those institutions were complementary: one dealt with security, and the other with politics and economics. That combination eventually created the circumstances that caused the Berlin wall to come down, and the dissolution, in due course, of the Warsaw pact.
It is vital to accept that circumstances have changed when we come to consider what the future of Europe should be. Any future Europe must be willing to accept the accession of other countries to the European Union. That is the purpose of the treaty of Nice, and there is no justification for the apocalyptic view of the treaty that has characterised some of the debate over the past few days.
There are those who say no to Nice. They insist that the House should not ratify the treaty, regardless of what its terms will be, and that the Government should not sign it. However, in effect, those people are saying no to enlargement of the European Union for the foreseeable future.

§ Mr. Maude
Enlargement is possible without the treaty of Nice.

§ Mr. Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but if enlargement is undertaken on the present terms, a number of questions arise. What would be the size of the Commission? Would not countries that do not represent a majority of population in an enlarged EU have the ability to outvote countries that do represent a majority of population, as the Foreign Secretary has warned?
Enlargement might be possible without an extension of qualified majority voting, but, under those circumstances, countries that join the EU would be in a position to exercise a veto immediately. They would therefore be able 477 to prevent existing and recently joined member countries from bringing about any objective on which they all agreed.
It is true in theory that enlargement can happen without a treaty of Nice, but it is clear that, without such a treaty, political difficulties would mean that enlargement would be delayed for a very long time. That would be a poor reward for those countries that have worked so hard to achieve democratic standards and to move towards market economies. The consequence would be to underline the view that the European Union was introspective and protective and that it was not willing to share the benefits and advantages that have accrued to its members with those countries whose peoples lived for so long under systems that were wholly antagonistic and inimical to the objectives for which the European Union was formed.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
Are the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party in favour of enhanced co-operation? That is one of the themes that will emerge from the Nice treaty discussions. Would he support certain key European Union countries going ahead with certain areas of policy at a different speed from the rest of the membership?

§ Mr. Campbell
I have no difficulty with enhanced co-operation, as long as it does not have the effect of creating a two-tier Europe. For example, enhanced co-operation is clearly appropriate when it comes to defence. However, we must guard against creating a Europe in which there are first and second-class countries. That would be deeply damaging.
There is no evidence that the United Kingdom's fundamental interests are likely to be prejudiced by the treaty of Nice. Before I turn to some of the issues that I believe will arise in Nice, I want to spend a moment considering the European security and defence policy. My views are well known, and there is no need to detain the House on the matter. However, if the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is worried about cold war rhetoric, he ought to read some of the observations and remarks made by those who oppose the European security and defence policy. Much of their thinking appears to be locked into the rhetoric of the cold war. They fail to accept and understand that not only have circumstances changed in Europe but attitudes have changed in the United States.
It is simply not true to say that we are creating a standing European army, that NATO is being replaced, that British troops will be sent to fight on a majority resolution of the European Parliament and that all this could happen against the will of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. Does anyone seriously believe that in Germany—a country sensitive to the point of anxiety about military operations outside its borders—there would be any willingness to accept such operations? The German Government had to go to the constitutional court of Germany before they could put troops on the ground in Bosnia. It is beyond belief to expect that the German nation would sign up to this pastiche of a description of the European security and defence policy.

§ Mr. Cash
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a well-thought-out speech. However, I remind him that, only a couple of years ago, the Nuremberg memorandum, which I am sure that he is aware of, stated 478 clearly that they envisaged a relationship between France and Germany within the context of the Western European Union that included, for example, a collective defence based on a combination between conventional forces and nuclear forces. The idea that this is just a de minimis operation is rubbish.

§ Mr. Campbell
I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman says about the Nuremberg declaration, but that in no way fuels the notion that we are creating a single European army which will be invited—indeed, instructed—to fight on a majority decision of the members of the European Parliament. In Germany, just as in the United Kingdom, there is jealous guarding of the fact that committing troops and asking people to risk their lives is the responsibility of the domestic political system.
I actually agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who made the point in business questions that there should be some role for this House of Parliament when British forces are deployed abroad, and that it should no longer simply be part of the Executive prerogative. However, I do not believe that Germany or France has any enthusiasm for the description of a European security and defence policy that has characterised so much of the ill-informed comment that we have heard this week.
I have two further points, one of which picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Capability must match military ambition, and commitments on paper need to be founded in reality. There is no point in any country—Britain included—committing squadrons of aircraft when there are insufficient serviceable engines to ensure that those aircraft could be deployed if required. It is not all that long since there were two dozen aircraft on the ground at RAF Bruggen and only half a dozen engines available by which they might be able to fly. We must ensure that, if commitments are made on paper, they are supported in reality.
I have been unsuccessful in persuading the Secretary of State for Defence with regard to my next point, but perhaps I shall enjoy a little more success with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To ensure that the primacy of NATO is recognised, the protocols—the arrangements—should provide that NATO should always have the right of first refusal before any military action is taken. If that requirement were inserted in the arrangements, it could never be said that NATO had been sidelined or undermined. Let me express the hope, even at this stage, that the Government will consider that proposal. It comes from the United States—representing some of the legitimate concern that has already been discussed in the House—and would go a long way towards dealing with the position of the United States and, just as significantly, with the position of members of NATO which are not also members of the European Union.
I do not expect the treaty of Nice to be a great constitutional watershed on defence, treaty change, social security, taxation, own resources or borders, because the veto should remain in those areas.

§ Sir Michael Spicer
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very well-thought-out speech, 479 but there is a bit that I do not understand. The Liberal Democrat party believes in a federal state of Europe, so why does it approve a treaty and defence arrangements which it argues are not federalist?

§ Mr. Campbell
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the view that the Liberal Democrat party believes in a federal Europe—perhaps it comes from Conservative party briefing papers. I certainly believe in federal systems of government, in which power is devolved from the centre to the constituent bodies of, for example, the United Kingdom. If there were to be a federal Europe of that kind, I would certainly have some sympathy with it. However, the federal Europe to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an invention in which the artificial apprehension is that everything that is relevant to Edinburgh, for example, will be decided in Brussels. I am not in favour of that kind of federalism, so defined by the hon. Gentleman's question; I am in favour of the kind that ensures that decisions are taken close to the people who are most affected by them.
As to the veto, I have no doubt about supporting the Government's attitude on those matters. They are so fundamentally in the interests of the United Kingdom that the veto should be retained. However, there will be circumstances in which the retention of the veto would be against our interests. That is why we should take it on a case-by-case basis, whether or not there are any opportunities for qualified majority voting in other areas. It is as unrealistic to say that we will never agree to any further extension of QMV as it would be to abandon the veto and allow everything connected with the European Union to be determined on a majority.
I hope that the Government are seeking to reform the institutions of the European Union so that the 50 years of division about which the right hon. Member for Horsham spoke earlier can be set aside. In enlarging the Union, we are not simply rewarding those countries for their efforts but helping them to embed those values of liberal democracy in their countries. We will also be helping them—inducing them, even, because of the economic advantage—to open up their markets. In that way, we will all benefit.
We will be inviting those countries to join a mature political and economic union that exists between the members of the European Union. The co-operation that we have seen in Europe is unprecedented. That should be a matter of pride, not of apprehension or anxiety. The reweighting of votes is essential as a check and balance to prevent member states representing a minority of the European population from assembling enough votes in the Council to outvote member states which represent the majority of the population. It is sensible to provide for reduction in the potential number of commissioners. Majority voting should, as I have said, be extended on a case-by-case basis, where it is in our interests to agree to it.

§ Mr. Bercow
In the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, will he explain whether 480 he believes that qualified majority voting should be extended to culture policy and sexual equality and, if so, on what basis has he reached that view?

Hon. Members
It is on the agenda.

§ Mr. Campbell
Whether it is on the agenda or not, that is a case for arguing. I believe in sexual equality and absence of discrimination against sexual orientation. That is a good Liberal principle, and I have no objection to qualified majority voting applying to that. It might ensure that in other parts of Europe, where attitudes are less tolerant and liberal, British attitudes might ultimately prevail.
On the charter of human rights, I do not believe that it should justiciable now for two reasons. One is pragmatic: we have but recently repatriated the European convention on human rights into the domestic legal systems of the United Kingdom. Unquestionably, both systems will take some time to adjust. It does not make much sense to impose on what has recently been repatriated yet another charter of rights until we see how the action of repatriation works out and its consequences. That is an entirely pragmatic view.
I have a more principled objection at this stage, however; the proposed charter of human rights should not be justiciable in the absence of a proper constitution. The rights of the individual are certainly part of a constitutional settlement, but this charter should not become justiciable before we have a constitution.
I have no hesitation in saying that the time is ripe for a constitution for the EU. It would force a rigorous assessment and definition of responsibilities and relationships between domestic Parliaments, the Commission, the Council, the European Court and the European Parliament. In that context, it would give the opportunity to define the rights of the citizen. It would also bring some clarity and transparency. I very much hope that the Nice Council will establish a mechanism for devising such a constitution.
I hope also that the Council will devise means for far greater transparency in the Council itself when it acts in a legislative capacity. When it does so, it should be open to the public; at the very least, there should be publication of all its votes within, say, 24 or 48 hours of them having taken place. Far too much of what is done in the Council in a legislative capacity is concealed from the citizens of the EU.
The Government cannot escape some criticism in any argument about Europe. The notion—apparently put about in some Government circles—that they can conduct a European-free election campaign when the general election is called is just plain wrong. As events this week have demonstrated, important issues derive from our membership of the EU. The question of the single European currency will have to be resolved in due course for this country. It will not be possible to conduct a general election campaign—even if the Government want to do so—in which they do not make clear their attitude on the currency and on future developments in Europe.
I have no concern about that, because I and my party are perfectly willing to take those arguments head to head. Indeed, recent political experience in Romsey suggests to us that, when we take arguments head to head, success 481 sometimes follows. We are certainly prepared to argue the case not only for Europe, but for the single European currency.
I have never flinched from the view that constructive engagement in Europe is in the interests of the United Kingdom, but it must be a Europe which is outward looking and is willing to extend its membership to all those countries that share its values. If the treaty of Nice is consistent with those objectives, it will most certainly have my support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.