European Constitution

HC Deb 06 July 2004 vol 423 cc209-29WH

2 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con)

I want to dispose of one myth about the European constitution straight away—that is, its length. I have seen repeated references to the length of the treaty, but, having got the full text, to my considerable astonishment I discovered that, far from being 331 pages, which is in itself excessive, the figure, including protocols, is 676 pages. I have the documents here—I got them from the Library this morning—and the two together come to that extraordinary total. That is an indication of its scale.

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)

This is a friendly debate and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have the official Foreign Office draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe here. It is 248 pages. Can we swap, because we must decide on the number of pages? This is the official Government version; perhaps he is referring to some other treaty.

Mr. Cash

No. I can only refer the Minister to the documents that were given to me this morning by the Library. One is dated 25 June 2004 and the other, which is described as an addendum, contains the other provisions. It may be that the Library is mistaken, in which case we will be required to produce further and better particulars.

I do not have a copy of the document that the Minister referred to, and I would be glad to have one, but there are so many such documents and, in any case, we are told repeatedly that the whole thing is subject to the expression "toilletáge", so we will not have a final text until much later in the year.

The important point is that this is one of the most important documents to have been presented to the people of Europe and, in the European elections only the other day, we discovered exactly how little genuine interest there is in certain countries. That was described as apathy, but I prefer the word "rejection". When people are given an opportunity to take part in a debate on the scale of the one that took place during the European elections, I would expect a much larger turnout if people are properly informed. The problem is that the information that has been made available has simply not excited people's attention.

To start with, I will identify exactly what the provisions before us represent in terms of the text that we had beforehand. I think that that is a convenient starting point. It is a myth that the European constitution has been put to sleep until after the next general election. The reality is that it is already being implemented. That stage was reached even before the Prime Minister signed the final agreement on 18 June.

On 14 June 2004, the European Defence Agency, which is referred to in article III-212 of the constitution, was established. Indeed, preparations for the European Union diplomatic corps—the so-called external action service—should be taking place even as I speak under a declaration annexed to the relevant article of the treaty establishing the constitution and requiring the member states to get going as soon as the text is signed.

Furthermore, despite the assurances of the Prime Minister about an opt-out on asylum and immigration policy, several building blocks for the common European asylum system have been put in place, including the Dublin II regulation on responsibility for asylum claims. Furthermore, there is a directive on reception conditions for asylum seekers and a directive on temporary protection in the event of a large influx.

Directives on the definition of a refugee and on common asylum procedures are already well advanced. Indeed, the longer the delay in holding a referendum, the more of the 25 per cent. of the treaty establishing a constitution that the Prime Minister admits is not contained in previous treaties will have been implemented. That will make it even easier for the Government to press their false claim that a no vote is really a vote to leave the European Union—another underhand tactic from an underhand Government.

An honest Government would hold a referendum immediately. The British people could then reject this predatory, jargon-ridden, dirigiste constitution before it took hold. The constitution is a victory not for the Prime Minister or for the new Europe, as he suggests, but for the corporatist, Franco-German placemen who drafted it. It is the wrong prescription for an ailing Europe and it will not serve its interests. It should be torn up and thrown away.

The leader in The Economist of 26 June, "The right verdict", states: That lack of subsidiarity, of control, above all of any real sense of constitutional stability are the fundamental flaws of this treaty. The European Union does need a smoother, more efficient decision-making process, both for its own sake and so that it can enlarge itself even more in future … But if voters are to feel comfortable both with that efficiency and that enlargement, they need a constitution"— I question whether we need a constitution in any event, but that is the view of The Economist, and this is what it prefers— that stabilises and controls the process properly. It goes on: It needs to be demanded by voters. That is why the best result in all the ten referendums would be a resounding no vote. That is the view of a journal that, going back only a few years, was positively advocating the accumulation of treaties, but which has come to the conclusion that the constitution is a disaster area.

The Prime Minister, in accordance with his habit, has defended this monstrosity, which I think he has never believed in, with posturing and windy generalities. What he likes to call myths are most often real dangers that have been averted, and the aversion often owes more to lobbying than to the efforts of his Government. I am not talking about straight bananas, but things such as oil supplies. It should be noted that energy remains a new competence of the Union under the agreed text of the constitution, despite the best efforts of those in the oil business.

The real myths are the claims the Prime Minister makes about the constitution, which he dare not call a constitution because he knows that the British people are opposed to the imposition of a constitution in principle. He says that the constitution makes clear where the EU can and cannot act. What it does in fact is divide up the Union's expanded powers into exclusive, shared and complementary competences. A shared competence is one where the member states retain their powers in so far as the Union has not exercised, or ceases exercising, legislative power. This is, therefore, not a matter of equal sharing. There is a list of exclusive Union competences, but no list of competences expressly reserved to member states.

That issue was dealt with by the House of Lords European Union Committee when considering the role of the European Court of Justice, which led to a debate in the House of Lords on 21 May. I intend to refer briefly to a number of matters that arose in that debate because they go to the very heart of the fundamental question facing the people of this country, which is, who in fact is to call the final shots? Is it to be the voters in the general election or the European Court of Justice, adjudicating in areas that one would have assumed in a democracy to be the province and the right of the voters of this country? It is precisely because the European Court of Justice is given such overarching powers over matters of government that I oppose the constitution as a violation of our democracy.

The change in the nature of competences creates myriad grey areas that will be subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice, which itself is not an impartial tribunal, but an integrating institution of the European Union. We already know about the political influences within the European Court. Almost as soon as the texts had been agreed, one of its most senior judges made it abundantly clear that the treaty would expand their powers at the expense—although he did not say this—of the voters of this country and of the whole of Europe.

One of the fundamental objections that we all should legitimately have to the constitution is the structure that it creates throughout Europe. Far from improving stability, it will generate tension but—with the low growth and high unemployment that are characteristic of the European, or certainly the French and German, landscape—not prosperity of the sort that has been claimed for the new proposals.

This morning, I heard on the "Today" programme an interesting altercation between Derek Simpson of the TUC and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Mr. Simpson complained about unfairness in the European Union because of the state aids that are prevalent in France and Germany, and about the fact that we are now getting a diet of temporary workers and low-quality manufacturing. As far as he—and I take it, therefore, the TUC itself—is concerned, the TUC is inverting the attitudes that prevailed under John Monks, his predecessor, because it recognises that the way in which the European Union is moving is not in the interests of the social Europe to which the Minister referred in a speech a few days ago.

This Europe is not working; it is not successful. As I said a few days ago in an exchange with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the European Scrutiny Committee, there are features of the British economy outside the present arrangements that have benefited this country. There is no doubt about that. However, the manner in which the economy has been constructed is despite, not because, of the arrangements that the Government have entered into.

The Government's commitments in principle to the single currency and the European constitution are not just theoretical abstractions; they involve essentially practical matters. When one finds that the Labour heartlands and the TUC turning against the way this European Union is functioning, one can understand why, when compared with the previous European parliamentary elections, the Labour party lost a 19 per cent. share of its vote in the most recent elections.

When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry replied to the interviewer on the programme this morning, she described herself as being passionate for manufacturing and said that 3 million to 4 million manufacturing jobs had been created under this Government. Unfortunately, however, the problems relating to the new constitution that are now becoming clear will further diminish the effectiveness of that Government policy, which exists despite, not because of, their policy on the European issue.

Together with other colleagues on the European Scrutiny Committee, I cross-examined the Secretary of State on competition policy on 16 June. It is important to bear it in mind that competition policy is absolutely essential to the potential effectiveness of enterprise and productivity in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. It may come as a surprise that the Government's original intention, as expressed by the Leader of the House when he was playing a role in the prospective treaty and by others, was to insist that competition activity would be at most a shared, but not an exclusive, competence.

The exchange that took place in the European Scrutiny Committee included this astonishing remark on competition policy by the Secretary of State: As far as the IGC is concerned, it did come up though I could not tell you at exactly what date, I am afraid. This, as I have said earlier, was not one of our first order issues. It was one of my Department's many concerns about the original proposals and earlier drafts of the Convention but it was not a first order priority and, certainly once into detailed ministerial meetings, there simply was not time to worry about second order priorities". That demonstrates the Government's complete lack of comprehension and perspective on something so fundamental as how we as a nation are to be absorbed into the European Union and the inevitable effect on our jobs, our competitiveness, our productivity and our growth if we are locked into an arrangement in the European Union by which it has so much control over how questions of competition are to be defined.

As I and other Committee members from both sides said to the Secretary of State, we were simply not convinced by her arguments on why we ended up with competition policy being in effect an exclusive competence. I also asked her how she would deal with the avowed policy of France and Germany, which has recently been announced, to establish industrial champions. Quite clearly, that will be a highly protective measure, taking us back to the 1970s, which will be counter-productive and generate more problems internationally than one would possibly have imagined only a few years ago when all that talk was abandoned.

Having just been to Birmingham, Hodge Hill, where the by-election is to be held, I note that GEC Alsthom at Washwood Heath in that constituency has been closed. There was a discussion on the "Today" programme this morning about the problem of making trains. The GEC Alsthom experience, which I witnessed when I was the Member of Parliament for Stafford, was part and parcel of the failure to control the industrial champions policies that have had such disastrous effects on British manufacturing and employment. The French and Germans, for example, will be pursuing their industrial champions policy in the face of international competition from the world as a whole, as I told the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There is a fundamental flaw in that aspect alone of the direction in which the European Union is going. The difficulty facing us is also tied up with the extent to which the treaty provides for economic co-ordination.

I want to return to the question of the European Court of Justice. Lord Scott of Foscote, who is a Law Lord and chairs the European Union Committee, had some important things to say during the debate, and as far as I can see, the Government are not succeeding in or even attempting to repudiate the points that he made. He said: There is very little said in the proposed treaty about the role of the European Court of Justice. He said that in their response to the Committee's report, the Government said: 'The court's jurisdiction and role will remain essentially the same as under the European Community Treaty although the scope of the Constitutional Treaty itself will, of course, be different'. I do not know what you make of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it suggests that they are trying to have it both ways. Lord Scott then said: This statement … gives inadequate recognition to the increase in importance of the role of the ECJ".

The Government are extremely anxious to avoid the issue of the role of the European Court because they know that the ultimate question will be the exchange of voters' rights for decisions in relation to matters of fundamental importance in Government and governance of the United Kingdom and standing here in Westminster Hall in the British Parliament observing the history of this place in the fight for democracy and having to take part in a debate on a treaty that fatally undermines the democratic rights of the people who return us to Parliament and have done for generations, if not centuries.

The noble Lord then referred to what he described as perhaps the most important issue of all"— the jurisdiction of the Court. He pointed out that the European Court does not at present have jurisdiction in respect of second or third pillar matters. The second pillar is common foreign and security matters; the third pillar is police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Under the new constitution"— as I pointed out in previous debates— the three pillars will be collapsed. There will simply be European Union law which, according to Article 10/"— the number has changed to 10.5— of the proposed constitution, will have primacy over domestic, national law."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. 1001-02.]

The issue of primacy is fundamental and in the Prime Minister's statement to the House on his return from the European Council, he attempted to gloss over it. Eurorealists such as myself allege that primacy has substantially and fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between the European Union and the member states. In a nutshell, his response is that that is nonsense. However, he cannot repudiate the point that I put to him during Prime Minister's questions a few weeks ago that the constitution revokes all existing treaties and the laws that go with them.

The bottom line is that there is a fundamental change. The division of competencies, to which Lord Scott of Foscote referred in his report on the treaty, is not a mere drafting exercise. In recognition of that, and because the Government could not continue to hold the ring on the argument, the Prime Minister agreed to a referendum. He did not do so lightly and he has not given a satisfactory explanation of his change of mind. I am convinced that as we got deeper into the question, the position of the Government and of the Minister replying to this debate became both transparently absurd and increasingly impossible to maintain.

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con)

May I return to the question of the primacy of EU law? The Government's approach is absurd given that the Leader of the House sought to amend exactly that point during the Convention on the Future of Europe. While the Government are saying one thing now, in practice they unsuccessfully tried to reverse the constitutional enshrining of the primacy of EU law.

Mr. Cash

Absolutely. That was precisely why the Prime Minister originally resisted the idea of a constitution and said that it was not desirable or necessary. The Government know exactly the impact it will have and how invasive it will be on the democratic rights of the electorate.

I held a debate in this very Hall a few weeks ago about my Sovereignty of Parliament (European Communities) Bill, in which I have proposed a solution to the problem of primacy. There is ongoing dispute here and in other countries about whether the European Court or the highest domestic court in the land has the last word. However, the passage of a Bill that unambiguously states that enactments that include the words, notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972", are inconsistent with that Act would impose an obligation on our judges to give effect to that. It would strike at the heart of the manner in which the European Court asserts its jurisdiction over our constitution and, as expressed in the relevant articles of the European constitution, takes primacy over our constitution and laws.

This is in fact a new situation, not a repetition of the existing one. Where the constitution refers to the conferral of powers through the member states, that applies only to the act of putting together the proposals for the constitution. Once the constitution has gone through, the European Court will exercise its jurisdiction over our constitutional arrangements unless we have a provision that reaffirms the sovereignty of this Parliament. It is simply not good enough for hon. Members and the Government to assert that it is nonsense that the constitution has an adverse impact on the manner in which we exercise our sovereignty in this place. There will be a substantial difference. In the evidence given to the House of Lords European Union Committee, a number of distinguished legal experts made it clear that that would be the case. One went so far as to say that he would prefer the word "supremacy" to be used rather than the word "primacy", for obvious reasons.

The Government will continue to protest their case, but it is a sham. If anyone considers the history of the European Union in the past decades, they will see clearly that the endless list of assertions that have been made, for example in the 1970 White Paper that we would not lose the veto, have all proved completely unsubstantiated. The reason for that is that those who are driving forward the process and have established the idea of a European constitution by agreement between Governments—but not people—have done so with one objective: the political union of Europe.

For all the arguments, dancing on the head of a pin and analysis of individual provisions the totality of the exercise is as clear as daylight. It is intended to create one state and a political union, and the constitution is the culmination of that work. Considering the continued ingenuity of those pursuing that objective, they will undoubtedly find other ways of bringing more effectively into account matters such as national taxation. After all, whether we are dealing with taxation, defence or foreign policy, it is clear from the pattern of established movement towards integration that that is what is intended and that is what will happen.

It is simply a massive deception on the people of Europe and this country to suppose that that is not in the making. In fact, I would go further to say that all the essential ingredients already exist. Although the European Court of Justice does not get an enormous amount of publicity—which is highly regrettable— it already adjudicates on matters of national taxation in relation to corporate tax. The boundaries are being pushed back all the time, and the same applies to defence and foreign policy. Even if the barriers—the so-called red lines laid down by the Prime Minister—were construed as having had a partial success, they will not withstand the overriding tidal wave of determination to take over other functions in the short term.

In a House of Lords debate, Lord Scott listed the areas that were outside ECJ jurisdiction, including common foreign and security policy matters … police and law enforcement matters, and matters relating to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of national security — Outside these specifically excluded areas, the ECJ will have jurisdiction. However, he pointed out: Even in the areas from which ECJ jurisdiction is excluded, European law will have primacy — It is an oddity that European law will have primacy over member states' domestic law, even in the areas where the ECJ does not have jurisdiction."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. 1002.] That point was not answered in the House of Lords, so I hope that the Minister will answer it now. It is not only an oddity, as Lord Scott said; it is an absurdity. However, the key point is that it should not be within the competence of the European Union in the first place.

Where the treaty refers to the fact that the limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral", it is implied that, somehow or other, that prevents the European Union from acquiring the degree of control that I assert it attains. Once the constitution has been ratified, conferral will give way to the consequences and the European Court will ultimately have the last word through its control and ultimate say over competences.

Lord Scott went on to ask which courts would have the final word on such issues as and when they arise. Without going into the detail of that, the bottom line is that he says that the European Court must have the final say, and Lord Slynn, who spoke earlier in the same debate, said that that was absolutely fundamental to the workings of the European Union. Above all else, the bottom line is the insistence that we get over and again that the European Court must have the last say. I argue strongly that that is an undemocratic way to run the European Union and is in itself a reason why it is essential that the constitution be rejected.

Indeed, as the Prime Minister said in his statement on 21 June, of course, European law only takes precedence where member states have agreed that Europe should have a competence."—[Official Report, 21 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1080.] However, it is the European Court and not our courts that will decide which competences we have given to Europe as Lord Scott noted. At present, the doctrine of primacy remains an invention of the European Court of Justice and member states can set their own limits on it. However, once it becomes the founding principle of a European constitution, there can be no argument, only obedience. The Prime Minister says that the new treaty provides for qualified majority voting "where we need it". He did not say that we needed more qualified majority voting before. That is because we do not need more of it, and certainly not in the 40 extra areas that the European constitution provides for.

The Prime Minister says that the UK will retain a veto over tax, but as I pointed out, the European Court has been harmonising corporation tax for years, and there is nothing in this constitution that would prevent it from continuing to do so. He has spoken of safeguarding the areas of social security and criminal law procedures, but the so-called emergency brake on new European legislation in all those areas can be overridden by the European Council. He talked about national Parliaments being given the power to send legislation back to Brussels, but all they can do under the protocol is send a reasoned opinion on whether the draft legislation complies with the principle of subsidiarity, which, as we all know, has never worked. When it was first announced back in 1990, I described it as a con trick. It has never worked, and there is no intention that it should.

The Prime Minster seeks to present the so-called explanations added to the charter of fundamental rights as a victory that will neuter the charter, but the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), originally told us that the charter would have no more legal force than the Beano, and now it is an integral part of the constitution. Many European lawyers doubt that the much more vaunted so-called explanations will have the effect that the Prime Minister claims for them. Indeed, the president of the European Court of Justice is not willing to say that the charter's provisions will not apply directly to the United Kingdom.

The reality is that the Prime Minister's claims about the charter, such as those relating to labour laws, do not look at the threats in the round. A declaration annexed to the treaty drops a hint, saying: The guarantees and practices existing in each Member State as regards the responsibility of the social partners"— the representatives of workers and management respectively— will not be affected. This declaration is without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution conferring competence of the Union, including in social matters. In other words, the constitution is purely rhetorical, and social policy provisions may ignore it.

The Prime Minister's statement was suspiciously silent on the subject of economic co-ordination. I touched on that in my exchanges with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it came up on the "Today" programme this morning. Fundamentally, the question whether we shall continue to benefit from being outside the eurozone will be vitiated by the provisions relating to economic co-ordination. The third paragraph of article I-11 states: The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within arrangements as determined by Part III, which the Union shall have competence to provide. The first paragraph of article I-14 now states, in respect of economic policy co-ordination, that the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies. Furthermore, a declaration on the discredited stability and growth pact states: The Member States will take all necessary measures to raise the growth potential of their economies. Honestly, what a joke. It goes on: Improved economic policy coordination could support this objective. Weasel words, if ever there were.

The member states should never have entered in to the stability and growth pact in the first place. I was deeply opposed to it at the time, and made it quite clear, in a response that I gave to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He wrote to all Members of Parliament explaining the virtues of the stability and growth pact, and I replied in a letter, explaining why I did not think that it would work. People can judge for themselves.

Since the December intergovernmental conference, there has been a drift back towards greater economic and employment policy co-ordination at EU level, which represents a major reverse for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury and is, prospectively, a threat to Britain's economic future. Furthermore, although the constitution may not force Britain to join the euro, it certainly turns the screw.

Under article III-91, non-euro member states, such as the UK, are to lose their voting rights in a number of areas, including recommendations made on the basis of "multilateral surveillance", and measures relating to excessive deficits". That is a fundamental question. Voting rights are also to be lost in respect of decisions establishing common positions on issues of particular relevance to economic and monetary union within international financial institutions and conferences That clearly identifies problems that will arise as a result of the EU being given legal personality—another offensive part of the constitution. There will also be measures to ensure unified representation within the international financial institutions and conferences". That is another reflection of the creation of a legal personality.

Eurozone countries will thus be acting as more of an exclusive bloc, even as the economic aspects of economic and monetary union are tightened for all member states, including the UK. Indeed, the greatest myth of all—the people of this country have been fed a diet of myth by the Prime Minister—is that we face disaster unless they vote as the Prime Minister tells them to. I have just come back from the by-election campaign in Hodge Hill, and can assure hon. Members that, as we went round, it became quite apparent that the issue of the European constitution—not just Europe as a whole, but the constitution in particular—was causing a great deal of anxiety to people in that constituency. If this constitution fails, the result will not be a new European war, nor millions of British job losses, nor even the expulsion of Britain from the European Union. Rather, the whole matter would be referred back to the European Council.

The reality is that negotiations would then have to start afresh, not on the basis of making limited amendments to a huge, detailed text drafted in advance, but on the basis of a blue-skies reappraisal, which is what is needed. That is no myth but a genuine prospect, to be welcomed by all those who have the true interests of the British at heart.

That is the key point. We are tampering with the real emotions of the British people, and the constitution is a disgrace for that reason alone. No proper explanation has been given and no proper information is being provided. We see from statements made by the Government in the past few days, for example from Baroness Symons in the House of Lords yesterday, that there is a need for more information to be made available. The bottom line, however, is that the Government will not do that on a fair and reasonable basis.

What are we to do in such a situation? In a nutshell, we will have to repudiate the constitution, and we will have the opportunity to do so in the coming referendum. The European elections also demonstrated a reality, not only in the United Kingdom but across Europe as a whole, in line with the persistent arguments and campaigns that have been going on for the past 30-odd years. The reality is that the arguments have now settled into the minds of the voters not only in this country but across Europe.

A further problem, which we will have to deal with, is that the Conservative party will have to engage in a policy of fundamental renegotiation combined with rejection of the European constitution. If we do that, we will gain the support of the people of this country not only in the referendum but in the forthcoming general election. It would be a monumental mistake for anyone to believe that the vote of the United Kingdom Independence party in general, and in specific marginal seats in particular, will evaporate. In certain parts of the country, the Conservative party was overtaken by UKIP in the European elections, and in the East Midlands region, the difference between the Conservative share of the vote and an outright win for UKIP was a mere 4,000 votes.

We must recognise the need for fundamental change, and recognise, on the principle of mutual assured destruction, that the UKIP vote will not achieve its objectives on its own terms precisely because it cannot do so without the Conservative party being in power, while equally, the Conservative party will not be able to get the number of votes needed to achieve power unless it reclaims votes from UKIP. We are locked into a situation from which we shall have to move forward with a more constructive, more convincing argument. Fundamental renegotiation, combined with rejection of the European constitution in principle, is the right way forward.

2.49 pm

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

I think it was Cicero who said: Those who know nothing of the time before they were born will remain forever a child". The history of the constitutional development of the European Union has depended on that. The present Government have always employed the technique of asserting that what they are doing is merely an accepted conclusion to a long process, but many of us who in 1975 voted to remain members of what was then considered a common market have watched as that, under successive Governments, has developed into something very different. That is important, and it is similarly important that the Government have at last—contrary to their initial instincts and the Minister's own views—conceded that a referendum is appropriate.

The circumstances in which that decision was made are curious. Just three weeks before the Prime Minister accepted that there should be a referendum, the Whips drummed 237 Members into the Lobby to vote down that very concept. Most of us have watched over 30 years the development of something different from the Common Market. We have had the Single European Act and the treaties of Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam. Now there is the prospect of the new constitutional treaty, which is very important and contrary to what most of us initially understood.

The results of the recent election demonstrated something. Out there, without understanding the subtle nuances that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has been enunciating, the people know that this is a constitutional settlement. They have seen British Governments discharge obligations that they never knew had been entered into. They have watched a European Court of Justice, prior to our entry to the Common Market, take upon itself a primacy in law that no country had agreed to within the treaty. That was one of the essential arguments of my hon. Friend concerning the primacy of law in the Community, and it is now to be institutionalised in the constitution.

This is called a constitutional treaty because it is a lock on our own constitutional arrangements. I say "constitutional" because my alarm over the years particularly concentrated on the Maastricht treaty, which first revealed to me the wider vision. Where was this European demos? Where was this European polity? The old language had secured for this country a constitutional harmony and peace beyond that of any other western European country, yet we are so casual about it.

Who is the sovereign? That is the oldest question in politics. As Churchill said, in our modern constitution, the people are sovereign. The treaty is designed to remove the sovereignty from the people of this polity—from the demos of this polity—and transfer it absolutely and until the end of time to institutions beyond their reach. That is what it is about, and that is the choice that we shall be arguing about.

I believe that British public opinion is more settled about the constitution. The people profoundly reject it. They no longer trust the politicians of my party or those in government when they assert their understanding of the articles and details of the constitution. They are right to distrust it. Even with the best intentions in the world, I have listened to Ministers of both parties pronounce their understanding of what a policy, position or competence of the UK Government is, only to see it overturned.

Who is the sovereign? In this constitution, the sovereign will be the European Court of Justice. That is alien to our concept of government and our concept of accountability. That the whole of this country can profoundly object to a measure or a policy—profoundly, destabilisingly object to it—means nothing within the terms of the treaty. I give a cheer because the great divide that arises over the constitution will show that this country has not lost a sense of itself, its constitutional heritage or what democratic and accountable government means.

2.55 pm

Sir Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife) (LD)

I disagree with almost everything said by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but I have a grudging admiration for him because he brings to these occasions an admirable political, if not intellectual, consistency.

I claim a certain moral rectitude in these matters because my party was the only one to face the electorate at the previous general election with a proposal for a European constitution as one of its manifesto commitments. I am pleased that a document has emerged. Had I been given the opportunity, however, I would have written parts of it differently. Parts of the proposals are not as ideally expressed or as ideally founded on principles that I regard as important as they might be, and the document is not necessarily as accessible yet as it might be, but it is in an understandable form. It sets forth the competences of the European Union and provides the framework for administering a Union that has grown from the six countries that first formed the European Coal and Steel Community to the 25 that now constitute the EU's membership.

The primacy of European law is part of our constitution by virtue not of anything done in Europe, but of the Act of Accession, which led us to join the EU in 1973. Therefore, it has been a constitutional provision to which our courts have had to defer and which has allowed access to the European Court of Justice for people in this country who are dissatisfied with the application of EU law by our domestic courts. The primacy of European law is, in my judgment, part of our constitutional arrangements and therefore does not deserve the description of novelty advanced with such enthusiasm by the hon. Member for Stone.

One fact to which the hon. Gentleman failed to refer, but which I thought would have given him limited comfort, is that whereas the provisions with regard to the withdrawal of any country from the Coal and Steel Community, or the European Economic Community as it became, were to some extent ambiguous, the new document provides for an express right of withdrawal, which some argue never previously existed. Therefore if we reach a point at which a constitutional absurdity, in the hon. Gentleman's terms, arises, we have an obvious remedy and one which, exercised by a country as significant in the EU as the United Kingdom, would undoubtedly have not only legal but enormous political significance.

Mr. Cash

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that the withdrawal provisions are hedged with conditions that could make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to operate effectively. Does the Liberal Democrat party in principle rule out there being any circumstances in which it would invite the UK Parliament to legislate unambiguously contrary to any European treaties, laws or European Court rulings?

Sir Menzies Campbell

If one legislated in that form, as the hon. Gentleman suggests and as I think the leader of his party has suggested in respect of the common fisheries policy, it would be the first time in the constitutional history of the UK that the UK Parliament had passed, or even sought to pass, legislation contrary to its international treaty obligations. That would be a major constitutional step and an extraordinary precedent, and one should be extremely reluctant to embark on those unless one is clear in one's own mind as to what the consequences of such a remarkable event would be.

If one enters into treaties—such as the Maastricht treaty, which the House passed when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, or the Single European Act, which the House also passed when his party was in government, or the Amsterdam treaty, which was passed when this Government took office, or Nice, which was later still—one undertakes certain obligations. So far as I know, never in the history of the United Kingdom have we passed domestic legislation that is inconsistent with treaty obligations.

On the matter of a referendum, during the Maastricht treaty proceedings I voted for a referendum proposed in a new clause that was tabled by a Labour Member who has now returned to his homeland of New Zealand.

Mr. Cash

Bryan Gould.

Sir Menzies Campbell

Yes, Mr. Bryan Gould. As I remember, on that occasion we were not overwhelmingly supported in the Lobby by those Conservatives who now argue for a referendum with such vehemence.

However, those people are right to argue for a referendum because the document, if approved, would change the nature of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Brussels. In my judgment—as I have said on the Floor of the House on many occasions—in those circumstances the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom is necessary, just as, if we were to join the single European currency, a similar endorsement would be required. Indeed, Lord Ashdown of Norton-Sub-Hamdon, then leader of the Liberal Democrats, was the first to say that joining the single currency raised not only economic but political and constitutional issues that require endorsement. So, I have little difficulty with the concept of a referendum.

However, I say to the Government that, if the referendum is to be won, it cannot be put off until after a general election. The case for Europe must be made now. If there is a legitimate criticism of the Government, it is that, far too often. that case has gone by default. Far too often the Prime Minister has repeated the mantra that he wishes Britain to be at the heart of Europe—something with which many of us agree—but his practical implementation of that obligation appears to be the occasional speech made in Warsaw. If the referendum campaign is to be successful, it must begin now.

Be assured that the campaign for a no vote has begun. The speech of the hon. Member for Stone made that clear beyond question. He says that the document seeks to achieve one state. In opposition to that conclusion, one has to point to the fact that the Government succeeded in preserving the so-called red line issues.

One also has to ask whether one can imagine the Government of President Chirac—perhaps notorious for their individuality—being anxious to submerge that individuality in one state. I see little evidence of that. Can one imagine that those countries that lived under Nazism and then communism, which have but recently broken out into the opportunity of democratic institutions, will voluntarily give up their hard-won independence after—for many of them—so many sacrifices to be submerged in one state? I simply do not see it.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that not enough people in those countries voted in the European elections, but those who required the mechanism of a referendum to justify their application to the European Union certainly voted in sufficient numbers. I simply say to him that his notion that the constitution is some creeping conspiracy is not recognised outside the United Kingdom. His notion that there can be a renegotiation of the United Kingdom position is not one that I understand to be supported by any other Government among the 25 members of the European Union. Nor—I believe I am right to say—is it an idea that is supported by the European People's party, to which his party is affiliated in the European Parliament. It would be a very solitary road to try to hoe—to put it at is mildest. I do not doubt his determination, but he needs rather better prospects of success before embarking on what would inevitably be constitutional and political turmoil.

Supposing the negotiation is turned down. What then? Supposing it proceeds but fails because there can be no agreement. What then? What would be the position of the people of the United Kingdom? If Mr. Kilroy-Silk MEP were here, he would say, "Hooray! I have managed in a limited way to wreck the European Union, in so far as it applies to the United Kingdom." However, if negotiation were refused or failed, what would be the position of those such as the hon. Gentleman who say that they wish Britain to remain in the European Union but on a different basis? What then?

Mr. Cash

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer a simple question? He advocates a referendum, as he knows I did on the Maastricht treaty. If the answer was no, where would that leave the Liberal Democrats? What would they do about it?

Sir Menzies Campbell

If the answer is no, that will put us precisely in the position in which the hon. Gentleman wants us to be. It will leave us seeking a renegotiation to which we cannot be confident any other Government will be willing to accede. Therefore, we cannot be confident that renegotiation will be successful. The consequences of a no vote will be extremely serious. He must—I hope—grasp that nettle as much as anyone else.

Mr. Shepherd

I am not certain where that argument lies, inasmuch as that, if the referendum rejected the constitution, under the present arrangements of the European Union the constitution would be dead and we would retain the existing treaty pattern.

Sir Menzies Campbell

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We would have to find our way through the Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties, all of which contain provisions to which he objected in his speech. I do not wish to put him in a corner that he would not wish to occupy, but there is a sense in which the logic of his position leads him more towards the position of the United Kingdom Independence party than staying in Europe and finding some form of renegotiation.

Our position is well known. The constitution is an acceptable document, and we want it to be endorsed by the people of the United Kingdom. This is a time when it is essential to our security and prosperity that we are in the European Union, not least so that we may have, together with our partners in Europe, a rather less subordinate relationship with the United States than we appear to have enjoyed in the past two years.

3.9 pm

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con)

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who brings a refreshing honesty to such debates. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for introducing the debate and for putting forward his arguments in a comprehensive and informed way. Also, it is always a particular parliamentary delight to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is one of the most principled parliamentarians in the House.

We must debate the matter because it has the most profound impact on our country's future and, frankly, it is one that the Prime Minister has been unwilling to engage with. When he finally engaged his famous reverse gear and gave the country the referendum a matter of days after the Minister for Europe had been pirouetting in the opposite direction, he said: Let the issue be put and let the battle be joined. It is worth noting that, since then, the Prime Minister has failed to make one speech on Europe. If that represents the strength of the Government's argument and commitment to the whole issue of the EU constitution, I cannot wait for the referendum.

Even if the Government are frightened of talking about the constitution, that does not mean that its implications should not be discussed. We are at a turning point for the European Union. We can either try to become an ever more integrated structure, moving towards a politically integrated state, which is certainly the ambition of many—one size fits all for a Europe of 25 very different countries—or we can be much more flexible.

Everyone agrees that the EU needs to change. There is a deep and spreading alienation of the peoples of Europe from the institutions of the EU. We saw that illustrated by the very poor turnout in the European elections.

The Laeken declaration was right to state that the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens. The trouble is that the European constitution fails to do that—it does entirely the opposite. It rests on misplaced assumptions that the old European social model is working and that not one material power should be returned to the member states. Indeed, no power has been returned to the member states under this Government.

I want the European Union to succeed, but my party is opposed to the constitution—indeed, any constitution. The Economist has taken the view that European voters should reject the new constitutional treaty and demand something better. The constitution would be bad for Britain and bad for Europe. It is interesting that at one time the Labour Government would have agreed with us.

The story of Britain and the proposed constitution is clear: the fact that this constitution exists at all is a major strategic defeat for this Government. Ever since they gave in on the principle of a European constitution, they have been engaged in an increasingly desperate damage-limitation exercise, as we saw in the Convention on the Future of Europe.

Let us look back at the changing positions that the Government have taken. Five years ago, the then Foreign Secretary told the House, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone: For the record, we are not proposing a constitution of Europe."— [Official Report, 25 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 184.] Less than four years ago, the Prime Minister told us that we did not need a European constitution, and then the current Foreign Secretary told us that we should have an EU constitution, and that he wanted it to fit into his back pocket.

Once the Government had given in, they were admirably frank about what the constitution meant. The Leader of the House said: Our task is nothing less than the creation of a new constitutional order for a new united Europe. However, the Government then became rather nervous and started talking fatuously about a "tidying-up operation".

In summary, first the Labour Government said that there would not be a constitution, then that some people wanted one but that the Government were against it, then that there would be one and that it was a good thing, and finally that there would be one but that we had nothing to worry about in terms of its importance. I do not believe that Europe should have a constitution, because that would lock it into a frozen-in-time mindset born in the 1950s and irrelevant to the needs of Europe today.

The Government have made a fatuous defence of the constitution. The Foreign Secretary has often argued that giving the EU a constitution is nothing to concern ourselves about because golf clubs have them. Such a comparison is demeaning and absurd. Golf clubs do not have Foreign Ministers or make binding laws.

Rather than the Foreign Secretary's fulminations, I find Professor McEldowney's evidence to the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords more convincing: While the Constitution may constitute the sum total of the existing Treaties, revised and refined, it is also endowed with a status of a Constitution—even though this status is not well defined or explained. Inevitably the status of a Constitution invites interpretation by the courts and this adds an additional dimension of how judges might interpret the terms of the Constitution. There is plenty of room for interpretation, particularly as there is such unnecessary vagueness. Therein lies the rub—a point that was tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

Over time, the constitution will inevitably diminish Britain's independence and increase the EU's powers over our laws, our way of life and how we do business. In particular, it will strengthen the European Court of Justice's power as it weakens that of Parliament. That is the key. The constitution favours the increased jurisprudence of the European Union at the expense of national Parliaments.

The Prime Minister said that the charter of fundamental rights would be a political declaration without any legal force, but it already has legal force and will extend what is known as judge-led law in our national life. The Government's assurances that this will be confined to European law and that the Court will not overturn national laws are more statements of hope than certainty. The president of the European Court of Justice could not give that assurance; the Government's own expert, the widely respected Professor Dashwood, feels unable to give it. More recently, the TUC was confident that it could get round the Government's restrictions in respect of the charter's effects.

The constitution increases the EU's power over energy policy, competition policy, asylum and immigration, and criminal law. New powers for Eurojust and allowing the creation of a European public prosecutor are the embryonic beginnings of a European Union FBI.

The constitution is an astonishing failure of British diplomacy. We heard about the red lines, but they were not met. The Government said that there would be unanimity in respect of the criminal justice system and social security, but there is now the so-called emergency brake. I do not understand why the Government feel such a need to defend a document whose form and content they used to oppose. That is not leadership in Europe; it is a dismal failure of a modern European agenda, which we need.

The simple tragedy is that if the Government had stood up like the boy who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes and said that the constitution was a bad project and rejected it, they would have been celebrated in many quarters of the European Union.

As I have discovered in myriad conversations, enthusiasm for the constitution is confined to the political leaders of a few countries. Yes, some countries want deeper integration, but others do not and there is no reason why those who want deeper integration should be hindered from going ahead. We want the EU to be reformed so that all 25 countries can feel comfortable in it. It will be up to the British people to decide what kind of Europe they want.

The battle lines are drawn and clear, but the constitution's proponents do not seem to want to fight. Why is the referendum being delayed for so long? The Dutch have indicated that they will hold their referendum in December during their presidency. Why should not we do so, too? Why are the Government running scared of the debate? The Minister is such a bold believer in more power for the EU, and he even signed a document advocating EU taxes and giving our United Nations seat to the EU. Why is he determined to kick the referendum into the long grass? Why will the British people not be allowed to take a decision very quickly indeed?

When the history books are written, the Government's failure to have a material impact on the constitutional architecture that they signed up to will be their epitaph. For those of us who want the EU to succeed, the tragedy is that this is a recipe for the further alienation of the people of Europe from Brussels, with all that that might mean.

3.18 pm

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)

I know that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) would not want unintentionally to mislead the House, so I put it on the record that in the document he referred to, to which I and many others associated with centre-left parties in Europe attached their names, there is no reference to the EU replacing the United Kingdom or France in a single seat at the United Nations.

This has been a good debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for securing it, as it allows me to give the lie to the lies and myths that are so sedulously spread about the constitutional treaty. Let us be quite clear and honest: were it not to exist, we would be having the same debate on the existing constitution. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) have been utterly consistent over the years, certainly as long as I have been a Member of Parliament, in being opposed to any constitutional arrangements for the European Union that do not conform to their satisfaction.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills quoted that great orator Cicero, but the hon. Gentleman is rather more like Cato in the Roman Senate, who, no matter what the subject, finished his speech by stating delenda est Carthago, but the hon. Gentleman says eternally delenda est Europa. The plain fact is that Europe is not about to have the salt of a United Kingdom Independence party and an anti-European Conservative party spread about it. Europe has problems, but it is alive and well with 450 million citizens, great cities and a new middle class arising from the prison of Soviet tyranny—all associating themselves voluntarily, freely and independently with our great country in a project that will allots all our nations to grow in freedom.

This country of ours has always sought to operate on the basis of international law. If I may be allowed three more words of Latin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pacta sunt servanda—we honour our treaties. We honour them in the World Trade Organisation, which exercises a swathe of power over British commerce, and in NATO, which exercises a swathe of power over British defence and foreign policy, and rightly so.

When the Leader of the Opposition makes a solemn pledge to his fisheries and agriculture spokesman that if he is unable to obtain the agreement of 24 other member states to a renegotiation of the common fisheries policy he will pass national law in this House of Commons to exercise national control of it, there is only one consequence: under the Conservative party, pacta sunt non servanda. I do not propose to put that into English. I leave it in the obscurity of a dead language to hide from the British people the full horror, disgrace and shame that the leader of the Conservative party proposes to bring on the British people by solemnly tearing up a treaty obligation.

Mr. Cash

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacShane

No, because the hon. Gentleman in his speech—I counted every word—took up what amounts to approximately 13 per cent. of the entire length of the new constitutional treaty. He needs to make only seven more speeches to have read it all into the record.

We on this side of the Chamber, the British people, the Liberal Democrat party and decent Conservatives will defend our membership of the European Union and win the case for Britain to be engaged in Europe. This is a battle like the one fought on the corn laws when some members of the Conservative party did not follow their great leader, Sir Robert Peel, but preferred to remain a protectionist party. At the beginning of the last century, the Conservative party opted for imperial preference and isolationist protectionism. That drove Winston Churchill from among its ranks to become a Liberal MP for 20 years, so horrified was he by the protectionist, anti-internationalist turn of the Conservative party.

Finally, the Chamberlain policy of isolation from Europe in the 1930s is now perfectly replicated by the leader of Conservative party. During the 1930s, Chamberlain had the support of the Daily Mail and today the leader of the Conservative party has the support of the Daily Mail. The Conservative party can dance its isolationist, withdrawal jig with UKIP and Lord Rothermere. This party and this Government will defend British interests, which have always been based on being an open, trading nation entering into as many arrangements as possible to defend our interests.

Mr. Spring

What about the 1980s manifestos?

Mr. MacShane

From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman refers to the 1983 Labour party manifesto. He is quite right—look what it did to us. I am delighted, because I do not think that he, unlike the withdrawalists and isolationists sitting behind him, believes a word of what he says, but let him keep saying it because I know what the verdict of the British people will be. They may have enjoyed voting UKIP in the European parliamentary election, but it should be placed on the record that we, as the incumbent Government, suffered a voting loss, but they, as the incumbent Opposition, suffered a greater loss in terms of share of the vote than did that incumbent Government. That happened nowhere else in Europe.

The more the Conservative party becomes anti-European and the more it goes down the isolationist, xenophobic road where UKIP wants to take British politics, the better it will be for those decent, patriotic parties that support Britain's international engagement. Let us look at the UKIP manifesto. The second line of the leaflet that came through my door was about opposition to immigration. That is the second UKIP agenda, which, like that of the Front National in France and Vlaams Blok in Belgium, involves not just hatred of Europe, but hatred of the other and hatred of people who they do not want in their country.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con)

rose—

Mr. MacShane

I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gummer

Does not the Minister agree that the least patriotic stance is the policy of a party that believes that Britain has so little to offer to the world that it should withdraw from its association with its nearest neighbours—an association so attractive that countries that have hitherto been under the heel of dictatorships want to join it—and that the least patriotic party in Britain is that which calls itself the United Kingdom Independence party?

Mr. MacShane

My right hon. Friend is perfectly right. Frankly, I feel quite ashamed when I look at some of the literature of that party, not because of its views on Europe—there are passionate views about Europe all over the place—but because of the language of xenophobia and hatred of people from other countries who live in our midst, which are shaming and repellent.

In the few minutes remaining, I want to refer to comments about the new constitutional treaty, since I do not believe that the House wants to hear from me. The Irish Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, said that the EU is not a super state; it's not a federal state. It's about a group of nations, a group of peoples working to a Constitution". Mr. Jose Luis Zapatero stated in a speech in the Spanish Cortes on 15 June: Europe is and will be a Union of States". The new president of Germany was quoted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 12 May: I do not believe that current developments are going to give rise to a European Federal state … [I see] a revival of the nation-state principle again. The president of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski, said on "Newsnight" in May: The Treaty doesn't mean we create a new state of Europe or something like a European federation". Le Monde, the French newspaper, stated on 26 June: Whatever people say, this text remains a British victory". The Spanish daily, ABC, said on 20 June that it isn't a Constitution of a state that already exists … the backbone of Europe is nations with a long and shining tradition". Mr. Stoiber, leader of the Christian Social Union in Germany, which is the Conservatives' sister party, was quoted in Welt am Sonntag on 20 June: The EU will not have the right to set taxes and Europe is not going to be a federal state. Le Figaro said in April that the constitution will seal the victory of the nation-states over the European 'super-state'". El Mundo, the Spanish paper, stated on 20 June: Blair, the big winner of the Summit, achieved everything he wanted. Blair managed to protect all his red lines in the text". Le Soir from Belgium, the very heart of European federalism—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara)

Order. Generally, contributions should consist of more than a compendium of quotations.

Mr. MacShane

I am trying to deal with the compendium of nonsense, distortions and myths that has come from the Conservatives. As I continually make these arguments in this Chamber and on the Floor of the House, but they seem to have so little impact on Opposition Members, I thought that I would pray in aid other distinguished world statesmen. Of course, I bow to your entreaty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in the remaining minutes I shall seek to deal with some points that were made.

The European Court ruled in 1964 that Community law has primacy over national law. When we joined the European Community, section 3(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 stated: Judicial notice shall be taken of the Treaties … and of any decision of, or expression of opinion by, the European Court". In other words, we accepted primacy because it is possible to have a set of international rules only if someone is the umpire or referee.

The constitution is good for Britain and good for Europe. I commend it to the House and invite all hon. Members to join me in ensuring that Britain remains a wholehearted member of the European Union so as to serve the interests of our British people and to defeat the reactionary, isolationist, withdrawalist arguments that we have heard this afternoon.