Foreign Policy: Europe and. America (Hansard, 9 May 1994)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, the outgoing US Ambassador describes very well the importance of Europe in Britain's relationship with the United States.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, in the light of that scarcely enlightening reply, does not the Minister agree that what was said underlined an important nuance of American foreign policy and brought out something not hitherto emphasised in statements on American foreign policy? Also, can she give us some idea as to whether the Government think our influence in the three capitals mentioned is likely to be enhanced by the current controversy and discussion regarding the possibility of a referendum on constitutional change in the European Union?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, in regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I recommend to all your Lordships the reading of Raymond Seitz's address to the Pilgrims on 19th April. It is a fascinating revelation of the real situation that exists between the United Kingdom and the United States.
On the second part of the question, so neatly slipped in, I do not believe that the possibility of a referendum on European matters arises now. Therefore, it does not need a decision now. I still recall the long debate in your Lordships' House last year when we firmly rejected the idea of a referendum. Indeed, many people wondered what question we could ask if we decided to hold a referendum. It is simply not on.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that what is acutely injurious to the conduct of British foreign policy is the deep division in the Government and the Cabinet on foreign affairs generally and on Europe in particular?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, much of the division to which the newspapers give great prominence is caused by a small group of people. This morning I went through a number of the clear successes of our policy on Europe—the success in the 1988 budget discipline decision; the success of the Edinburgh future financing agreement; the success that we had in introducing fines for non-compliance. I could give your Lordships another 15 examples, but I shall not detain the House in so doing.
My point is that if your Lordships examine what we are doing in foreign policy in a balanced and sensible way, it will be seen that the newspaper headlines and those who seek to draw attention to their personal views —on Back Benches or in other places—simply have not appreciated what is really happening in foreign policy, which in fact adds up to some great successes for Britain.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm, for the benefit of those of us who have not yet had the advantage of reading the late ambassador's speech, that there is nothing in it which departs from the proposition that we shall be more influential in Paris, 1342 Bonn, Washington and elsewhere if we retain our constitutional independence and do not become merged in the European federation?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the former ambassador—I am delighted to say that he is still very much with us and living in Britain—makes absolutely clear the benefit of the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom and how it enhances the relationship with other Members of the European Community. He does not talk about any of these far-flung ideas of federation, which we are not seeking; he talks about the relationships and the sound ground on which we work with our European partners and with the United States.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is it not obvious—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)
My Lords, I think we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Is it not obvious that the ambassador's message is that he would like a British Government who had as much influence in Europe as possible and who would stop squabbling about Europe and behaving as though they were in the middle of a nervous breakdown?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I can assure the House that the British Government agree not only with what Mr. Raymond Seitz said but also with the view that Britain's role in the Union is indispensable to the relationship with the United States of America. Many people are seeking to undermine Britain; to undermine the Government and particularly the Prime Minister. The sooner it stops the better it will be for Britain.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, as someone who has read the speech to the Pilgrims with great care, I ask my noble friend whether she agrees that this is a rather deplorable intervention in a matter of British domestic politics. Will my noble friend assure me that the practice that British ambassadors in Washington do not intervene in American political debates will continue?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, anyone who knows the former American ambassador to the United Kingdom will recognise that one would have to go a very long way to find someone more pro-Britain than Raymond Seitz. The speech was wholly positive. I am quite sure that speeches made on any matters American by the British ambassador in Washington would similarly be wholly positive. It is neither an interference in British matters nor in European Union matters. It is the summation of a very outstanding ambassadorship to the United Kingdom.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, with all respect to our American colleagues, will the noble Baroness stretch her memory a little further back into history when an American ambassador to the United 1343 Kingdom at the beginning of the last war passed the view that Britain would be unable to defend herself and that as far as he was concerned it was not a good bet to back the United Kingdom? Will she bear in mind also that, following that, the United Kingdom, together with the United States, succeeded in liberating Bonn from a tyranny and Paris from the consequences of her own folly? Does the noble Baroness further agree that we shall once again regain the national prestige that we had when we start talking with a firm voice instead of talking with a forked and muted tongue? Will she bear in mind that there are voices in Parliament, in this House and in another place that are quite capable of speaking out on behalf of Britain?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, no one could speak out more strongly for what he believes than the noble Lord. We may not always agree with him but he always speaks as he believes for Britain. However, times have greatly changed since the former ambassador to whom he referred expressed his view at the beginning of the last war. I shall not go back into history. I want to look forward, because what we have to do is to take forward the opportunities that we have in Europe. We have to take them forward in a way which helps us to bring down our unemployment, now the lowest in the Union, and to promote enterprise and employment. We have to stop niggling about things which we can change if we need to and we need to work on the positive; and the sooner we do that the better.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, does the noble: Baroness agree that whether we have a strong voice in Washington, Bonn or Paris depends on whether we have a strong economy and a strong trading position throughout the world and not just with Europe; on whether our leaders believe in Britain and the British people and the British people believe in their leaders; and on whether we all believe in our parliamentary democracy and the institutions which have been built up over centuries rather than those that some people at the present time seek to impose upon us from outside?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble. Lord knows full well that we are second to none in building a strong economy. We are coming out of the recession first, before any of our European partners. We are working, in a way which is quite amazing to some of our competitors on the Continent, in far off places to improve our trade throughout the world and not solely in the European Union. We do have a belief in Britain. But it is not only believing in Britain but working to make the European Union work for Britain that we are engaged upon. That is why the successes—and they are successes—need to be talked about and examined properly in contrast to some of the nonsense we read in the newspapers day by day.

§ Baroness Elles
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be extremely helpful if the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Bruce of Donington, who speak so strongly for Britain, could persuade their colleagues on the Benches opposite to support Britain rather more strongly rather than signing a manifesto for a European federal system?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Elles, I was amazed when I read the European socialist manifesto. To be in favour of extending majority voting to all issues is the very opposite of what we want. That is why it was a success by the British Prime Minister, John Major, to gain not only the retention, but an extension of, the veto. Other countries now want to make sure that they have a Luxembourg compromise should they need it. It is the socialists who are prepared to give away the Luxembourg compromise and the veto.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I was glad to see the Minister accept what the former US ambassador said about the importance of our influence in Paris and Bonn for our influence in Washington. But she also asked us to be positive in our approach to Europe. Would she not also agree that as long as the party in government remains deeply and publicly divided on Europe it can only weaken our influence in all the European Union capitals and hence our influence in Washington too?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I was present at the Council of Ministers meeting on Friday in Brussels. There was no weakening of the British stand or of our standing with all our partners in that council; nor has there been in Council after Council. In the Prime Minister's meetings with other heads of government, it is quite clear that our voice is well heard and that our fights for Britain are well understood. That is well understood, too, in Washington.