European Federalism: Definition (Hansard, 2 November 1994)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, the word "federalism", when applied in the context of the European Union, has no clear definition. That is why we fought, successfully, to prevent any reference to federalism in the Maastricht Treaty.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, I wondered how the Government would answer the Question. Does the Minister at least agree that the growth of the European Union to 16, and possibly 20, members could lead, under some kind of European federalism, to rather more subsidiarity than less?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I believe that more subsidiarity might be a rather good thing for the European Union. We do not advocate Europe a la carte, as it has been called. All member states of the Union must respect the core obligations of the single market and the competition rules, but there will be scope for differentiation in other areas provided, first, that it is 832 consistent with the Union's overall objectives; secondly, that it does not divide the Union by damaging the common purpose; and thirdly, that it does not create an exclusive hard core.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, does my noble friend—

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while "federalism"—

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, I think there will be time enough for both questions. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has the first crack, followed by my noble friend Lord Beloff.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while "federalism" may not have any clear definition, those who use it are clear about their intention as to what it will mean? Let us hope that it is an intention that the Government will be able to continue to avoid following.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, my noble friend misses an important point. The Maastricht Treaty reinforces the fact that the Community is about nation states co-operating together, and not about creating a European superstate. That is the core issue we should be addressing.

§ Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
My Lords, as the Minister says that the word "federalism" has no precise meaning, with which I am strongly inclined to agree, and as she takes pride in saying that the Government kept it out of the Maastricht Treaty, will she explain why the Government used such an imprecise word in blocking the nomination of M. Dehaene, who was described as an arch federalist? What did the Government mean by that if the word has no precise meaning?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am well aware that the press referred to the matter in those terms, but I do not believe that my right honourable friend used the term. There is no doubt that the atmosphere the word creates is a negative one. We happen to wish to be positive and to be at the heart of Europe.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, despite the cosy relationship that exists between the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the Minister on this subject, does she agree that, regardless of the atmosphere, the majority of the main partners within the EEC are totally committed to eventual federalism, according to the dictionary definition of the word that we would all understand?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, to begin with, I must protest at the allegation made by the noble Lord about the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and me. He might not want to be linked with me in that way. Secondly, in the wider European Union we have an opportunity to ensure that the nation state plays its part under the subsidiarity rules, and that the nation states come together and play their part as a European union where it is desirable that they should so do.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is Europe that is doubtful? Federalism is a precise word. It refers to a state of affairs where there is a 833 central government holding some powers and subordinate governments holding other powers as in the constitution of the United States of America? Is it not the case that the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, and the Treaty of Maastricht are building blocks on the way towards applying that formula to Europe?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's last question is no. He talks about Europe being doubtful. The only way I can possibly agree with him relates to where the actual borders of Europe now lie. That is an interesting matter which will be debated repeatedly in this House and another place because more and more countries are asking to become members of the European Union. They regard what has happened in the European Union as being extremely positive.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, if the Minister and the Government believe that the European Union should be a union of voluntarily co-operating nation states, will she give an undertaking that at the intergovernmental conference in 1996 the Government will resist any further powers being given to the European Union and will attempt to regain some of the powers already lost?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, it is fair to say that we are conscious of the need to respect the principle of subsidiarity which is now fully accepted. If, on examination of the powers which the noble Lord believes have been given away—I do not happen to agree with him—we find things that can better be done at a national level, we shall work to achieve that. We have a long way to go regarding our approach to the 1996 intergovernmental conference. I would underline to the noble Lord that it is an intergovernmental conference. That means a conference of the governments of the member states.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, since the Government consider that the word is meaningless, will the Minister be careful not to over-define now what their attitude to a meaningless concept will be in 1996? Will the Government continue perhaps to take refuge, as they have this afternoon, in constructive ambiguity?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord had listened to what I said in the first place. I said that federalism, when applied in the context of the European Union, has no clear definition. There are competing definitions, but I do not intend to be involved in ambiguity, even with the noble Lord, Lord Richard.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that we do not have, and never have had, a cosy relationship either in the other place or in this House. The Government do not appear to be able to find a definition of European federalism. However, will she confirm that the Government will be present at the IGC meetings in 1996 and that they do not rule out in advance any discussion on the issue?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I can comply with the noble Lord's requests. We shall be 834 present at discussions at the IGC council in 1996, the run-up to it in 1995, and probably after 1996 too, because there is no reason why it should necessarily be concluded then.