European Union: UK Veto (Hansard, 27 January 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last December in another place that in an IGC, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/03; col. 1320.] On 10 December I said in this House that, there has been no formal agreement on any single point of the draft treaty. That is for heads of state or governments by common accord at the European Council".—[Official Report, 10/12/03; col. 821.] It is now for the Irish presidency to build on the progress made under the Italians.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she recall that the Prime Minister also said that: The truth of the matter is that there is nearly a consensus on those issues in favour of the British position".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/03; col. 1327.]? On what did he base that? Has not Mr Ahern said since that nothing has been agreed, or was it just a question of reassurances given by Mr Berlusconi at the IGC meeting? Now that the constitution is about to be resurrected and retabled, which I along with many others in all parties regard as a huge mistake, is it not important to have the truth and accuracy of this statement nailed down so that we know where we stand and from where we are starting?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, we know where we stand. The noble Lord will recollect that on 10 December last we had a long debate in your Lordships' House. I, too, said very clearly that until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed. During the course of discussions near consensus was reached on a number of points, but that is not a final agreement. I am sure that the noble Lord will recall from his own days in office that during the course of negotiations there will be points at which near consensus is reached, but that within the overall framework it is understood by everyone that until the final point of agreement is reached, nothing is finally agreed.

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the principle of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" has always been the basis on which international treaty negotiations take place? There is nothing new in that. Does she further agree that if we really want to make a major contribution to the issues of substance, this House should fully support the issues on which the Prime Minister had expressed his "red lines" because they include a number of matters regarded as fundamental to this country, including the right to negotiate international treaties and, among other important issues, questions of national taxation?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, of course I can agree with my noble friend. He has expressed the point I sought to put to the noble Lord opposite whose memory seems a little short on these points. There is nothing different about the way this is being negotiated. It is how the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty were negotiated; that is the nature of international negotiations.
On the question of the "red lines", the Prime Minister has made it clear that the United Kingdom will continue to pursue the draft treaty—if the Irish are able to bring it back; which is a matter to be decided at the March meeting—and that the "red lines" will still be in place.

§ Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, may I proffer to the Minister the wisdom of an old Scottish saying? I do so as a generalisation and with no personal imputation: "Fools and bairns should not see half-done work". Does 97 she agree with my view that the vital national interest of this country and that of all other participating countries would be met by acknowledging that no great departure from the draft treaty agreed by the convention should be advanced?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's last point, that is a matter for the Irish Government to pursue. I understand that they are taking soundings at the moment. Some preliminary soundings were made yesterday. The formal position is that they will return with a report on the outcome of those soundings at the meeting due to take place towards the end of March.
With respect to the old Scottish saying, as a good Welsh woman I take note of it but am bound to observe that we proceed now on the basis of giving as much exposure as we reasonably can to the negotiations. Your Lordships have appreciated the way in which we have been able to consult fairly openly on what has been happening during the negotiations.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", can she explain the words in the Italian presidency's final declaration on the outcome of the IGC, when it was said that the IGC has "resulted in a text which will henceforth be considered as a negotiating acquis not open to further discussion"?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the question of the status of the text has now passed into the ambit of the discussions that the Irish are having. I have made clear to your Lordships that soundings are being taken on that at the moment. The fact is that by common consensus in dealing with treaties for many years, this treaty is being treated no differently. Until the ink is dry and the final agreement is reached, nothing is formally and finally agreed. That has been stated over and over again. The Prime Minister has stated it. We had a lengthy debate in your Lordships' House. I believe that we will have the pleasure of another lengthy debate very shortly. I am sure that the same points will be reached and the same answer will be given.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that while many of us fully accept that our key British interests have to be defended in this text, we would be very happy to hear the Government talking more broadly about European interests as well as British interests? Did the Minister see in yesterday's Financial Times, Philip Stephens's comment that President Chirac was thought to have suspected our Prime Minister of wanting to take over the leadership of Europe? Some of us rather wish that he would wish to do so.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, when I see these wonderful speculative articles about who might have said what to whom in our press, particularly on matters European, my eyes tend to slide rapidly down the page. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that the "red lines" are 98 there, but, as we know, that some good issues have come out of the discussions that we have had so far. We remain in good heart and hope that our friends in the Irish presidency will be able to take the issue forward. What matters is what happens between the countries of the European Union, not the speculation in our newspapers about the particular ambitions of particular leaders.

Lord Renton
My Lords, having been for three years Recorder of Guildford and second citizen, perhaps I may do the hat trick by asking whether the Prime Minister will bear in mind that it is not merely specified areas of the United Kingdom that are of vital national interest, but the whole country?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, of course the whole country is a matter of vital national interest. We are looking at the specific areas around retaining unanimity for treaty change and other areas, such as tax, social security, defence and criminal procedure law. The Prime Minister has pinpointed those as being the areas of vital national interest for which we will wish to maintain unanimity in the context of our European negotiations.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I have to add energy to the vital national interests that the Minister has just enunciated. Of course, I accept that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" in normal negotiations. I think that it is important to have this on the record: is the Minister reassuring us that the "red lines" issues—the four that she has mentioned and the one that I have added, and there may be others—have been generally agreed or are nearly at consensus, and that, therefore, there will be no more argument or attempt to breach them by any member state? Is that what she is saying?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
No, my Lords, that is not what I am saying. Try as the noble Lord may to get me ensnared in this particular point, that is not what I am saying. I do not honestly believe that, although it was a very good try, the noble Lord thinks that that was what I was saying.