European Affairs

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)

The Irish presidency of the European Union will chair the European Council in Brussels this Thursday and Friday. Today, the House has its customary opportunity to debate the Government's priorities.

The fight against terrorism, a timetable for discussions on the EU's future budget, further EU enlargement and foreign policy issues are on the agenda, along with nominations for a number of EU posts. But the main business of the European Council will be negotiations on a constitutional treaty for the European Union. Let me begin by putting those negotiations in context.

Europe's history has been one of rivalry and war. That history could easily have been today's reality, save for the European Union, which has changed profoundly the political culture of our continent, and made war between former sworn enemies unthinkable. Indeed, it is fair to say that the EU has been "uniquely successful" as a bastion of stability and shared democratic values in a volatile world; the largest trading unit in the world; and the largest aid donor. We have much to be proud of". We do, and those are the words of none other than Margaret Thatcher, speaking when she was Prime Minister.

Britain continues to benefit greatly from the EU, which, today, is the market for more than half our trade. Many of our companies rely on access to the European single market for their success. By working through the EU, and with the EU, we have cleaner beaches, air and water. British citizens are able to travel, study, work, retire, get fairer legal redress and obtain free medical help anywhere in Europe, without restrictions. We work together better to stop international gangs bringing drugs, terrorism and illegal immigrants into our country. It provides a network of trade, aid and cooperation that covers most of the world, giving us greater influence, stability and prosperity.

Of course, as with any level of government or politics, it is easy to knock the European Union. The fact that its institutions are more distant and more recent contributes to the unease felt by some about the way in which the EU works. Nearly five decades after its foundation, its institutions and procedures—designed originally for six members—are struggling to cope effectively with 25.

Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab)

When speaking to constituents during the recent elections, I observed their continuing failure to become aware of the many practical benefits conferred by European intervention, excellent regulations and excellent rules on them and the firms for which they worked, and the effect on goods that they bought in the shops. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was a characteristic of the elections? When talking to his European counterparts, will he see what we can do to improve public presentation of what Europe does?

Mr. Straw

I agree that that was one of the messages of last week's European elections, although we should bear in mind that the main message was that nothing like a majority favoured Britain's withdrawal from the European Union or its marginalisation within the EU.

Let me take up the theme that my hon. Friend has introduced. My Dutch colleague Ben Bot described the position eloquently in a speech in Berlin just before the European elections, a fortnight ago. Europe's leaders, he said, must "confront reality", "give citizens a say", and ensure that the rights and freedoms of member states and citizens are given adequate protection if Europe is to succeed.

Those and similar considerations lie behind the British Government's approach to the constitutional treaty, as set out last September in our White Paper. While the EU does bring great benefits, it needs reform to become more effective, more flexible and more efficient. Institutions and procedures need to be clearer and simpler, and national Governments and Parliaments should have a stronger role. We want majority voting where it brings benefits, but we must retain the veto in areas of vital national interest.

In short, we want a treaty that strikes the right balance between the powers exercised by its sovereign nations and the powers that nations confer on the Union in order to act together better.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con)

The Foreign Secretary has twice described what he is keen should be discussed in Brussels this week as the "constitutional treaty", as though that were somehow different from the constitution. For the sake of accuracy, will he confirm that the treaty is described in its own terms as establishing a constitution for Europe?

Mr. Straw

I shall come to that in a moment, but—for the sake of accuracy—let me make clear, as I will again, that the treaty is no different a legal animal in international law from any of the earlier treaties, including the Maastricht treaty, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommended to the House so eloquently in 1992.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)

A moment ago the Foreign Secretary mentioned not just his Dutch colleague but, rightly, the battle against drugs across Europe. I am sure he will recall, from his earlier incarnation as Home Secretary, the case of Curtis Warren. It was owing to the British Government's intervention that Curtis Warren walked away unconvicted in that major drugs case. The Dutch were able to teach us a lesson in how to apprehend such people. The fact is that drugs are not contained in one country; they are a Europe-wide scourge. Will the Foreign Secretary comment further on benefits to the fight against crime, in the light of that example?

Mr. Straw

Of course I remember the case of Curtis Warren. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The more we can co-operate in the EU on issues of justice and home affairs—drugs, crime, terrorism—as well as the issues that originally bound the Union and the single market, the better it will be for our citizens, and the more 784 we should proclaim the benefits. There is no doubt that the streets of Liverpool were made safer by the actions of the Dutch police and the Dutch courts.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con)

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw

I will give way one last time.

Mr. Bercow

Given that we have repeatedly, for more than a decade, been promised the protection of national Parliaments through the application of subsidiarity, given that the Foreign Secretary admitted to me on the Floor of the House on 21 May last year that the doctrine had proved unsatisfactory and given that the Prime Minister earlier this year failed to give a single example of the successful repeal of law through the application of subsidiarity under Amsterdam, will the Foreign Secretary accept that as an antidote to the pervasive cynicism in the country we now need as a minimum requirement a quantitative target for legislative repeal? What is his target?

Mr. Straw

First, there is a quantitative target for reduction in the volume of regulation in the European Union. I have discussed that with Commissioner Kinnock, who has been taking a lead on that recently. Secondly, I have accepted that the subsidiarity mechanisms have not worked particularly satisfactorily. That is why the British parliamentary delegation, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), took the lead in securing what is now a protocol and provisions for far better arrangements by which this House will be able to scrutinise draft EU legislation. That has been called a "yellow card" procedure, but it essentially enables this House, in combination with a third of other national Parliaments, to refer any draft legislation back to the Commission and the Council.

I have already brought forward proposals by which we will change our procedures in the House, if the House agrees, to make a reality of the subsidiarity mechanisms, which, I have to say, were raised in principle by the former Prime Minister John Major, but never followed through in practice.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

rose—

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con)

rose—

Mr. Straw

I shall give way, for the last time, to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

Mr. Salmond

The Foreign Secretary will know that on the 20 April in the House, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the Prime Minister said in respect of fishing: Fishing is still a shared competence, and we believe that that is right."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004: Vol. 420, c. 171.] However, in correspondence and meetings with me, the Foreign Secretary has pointed out that the vast majority of fisheries policy is to be under exclusive competence. What hope is there, if therefore, for a Prime Minister to negotiate on behalf of our fishing communities who is not even aware of the provisions of the constitution?

Mr. Straw

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is very well aware of the provisions and knows well, because he has seen it, that the early articles set down the conservation of marine biological resources as an exclusive competence, while the other aspects of fisheries are shared competences under articles I-12 and I-13.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have raised fishing and the common fisheries policy, because he campaigned in Scotland on only one issue: the repatriation of the common fisheries policy. He contrived to claim that he was involved in some kind of negotiation with me when I had offered him a meeting, as I would out of courtesy to any Member, and explained to him that the conservation of marine biological resources had been an exclusive competence since before we entered the European Union and was laid down in the accession treaty to which we signed up. The hon. Gentleman campaigned on the repatriation of the common fisheries policy, and what happened? He was roundly defeated in the elections in Scotland. Just to rub it in, he would do well to read a devastating article against him in today's edition of the Glasgow Herald, with the headline, "With fishing, there's always some catch".

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw

I shall give way later, but I want to make progress now. If agreement is reached—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Straw

I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) later, provided that he observes the usual courtesies.

If agreement is reached, this treaty will give us the chance to achieve reform of the way in which the European Union operates. We will have a single document that sets out what the European Union does and does not do. It will make it clearer than ever before that the European Union is a Union of nations that freely choose to share certain powers in order to achieve objectives that they have in common, and which acts only where its members have given it the authority to do so and where it can add value.

The treaty contains four important innovations. First, for the first time, it would give the body where Europe's national Governments take decisions—the European Council—a full-time chairman, replacing the present six-monthly rotating chairmanship. That post will strengthen the European Council, ensuring that the nations of Europe set the European Union's agenda and drive it through. For the life of me. I cannot understand what those on the Conservative Front Bench find to object to in that, because it will strengthen member states.

Secondly, the treaty would give national Parliaments, for the first time, a serious role in EU legislation, including the chance to send back draft legislation that goes too far. Again, for the life of me, I cannot see what the Opposition find objectionable in that. It was not in Maastricht, but it is going to be in this draft 786 constitutional treaty. It will strengthen the power of every Member of this House to hold the European Union to account.

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con)

That is not enough.

Mr. Straw

It is a damn sight more than we ever got out of the Tories, or out of the hon. Gentleman when he was supporting the previous Conservative Government. My determination, if we get this treaty, is to make that mechanism work effectively. That is why I have already proposed new procedures for the House to decide on about where we would implement that mechanism.

Thirdly, we hear talk about the repatriation of powers. This draft treaty makes explicit provision, for the first time, for competences shared between the European Union and nation states—which is the vast bulk of them—to be transferred back to full national control when European Union members decide that they no longer wish to exercise them in common. We hear demands, including from the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago, for powers to be repatriated back to the United Kingdom and other member states. I assume that he was working on the basis of where we could get agreement with our partners. But the Leader of the Opposition's Government failed ever to achieve those powers. They are not in the existing treaties, but they are in article 1.11 of this treaty. Again, I completely fail to see what it is in provision 1.11 to which the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) takes exception.

Fourthly, the treaty would set out better procedures for what is known as "enhanced co-operation", allowing smaller groups of members who wish to cooperate more closely in certain fields to do so. Dare I say it—that is a live-and-let-live approach to Europe, exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says that he wants. However, the Opposition are now setting their face against exactly the mechanism that would strengthen national Governments and Parliaments and enable member states that want to go faster than we do to do that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab)

Before we move too far from fishing, may I ask the Foreign Secretary as a senior and influential member of the Cabinet to do what he can somehow to resuscitate the original ten-minute Bill, in the form of a private Member's Bill, on marine conservation? That very important measure was scuppered in the other place, quite frankly frivolously and disgracefully. It seemed to be the will of the House of Commons to pass the Bill of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), and anything that my right hon. Friend could do for that Bill would be of great help to the fishing community and the marine cause.

Mr. Straw

I listened to most of the debate on that Bill, and of course we will take it seriously. I also listened to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) had to say today by way of complaint at the absence of any Minister on the Bench, and I listened to what you had to say on that, 787 Mr. Speaker. I assure my hon. Friend that I will personally pursue the substance of the Bill, and I will also pursue the issue of the absence of a Minister on the Bench.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

The right hon. Gentleman is claiming all sorts of new powers for national Parliaments in the constitution, but they simply do not exist. I am on the House's European Scrutiny Committee, and we already have the supposed right to scrutinise proposals on subsidiarity grounds, but the Commission may take absolutely no notice. The position will be exactly the same under the constitution, and there is no power for national Parliaments to block measures that breach the principle. That was spotted by the Government representative on the Convention, and the necessary amendment failed to pass. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that?

As an illustration, will the Foreign Secretary comment on the new declaration in the draft on combating all kinds of domestic violence? Is that not an immediate, standing, obvious breach of the subsidiarity principle being newly written into the draft constitution? Even before it has been ratified, the principle is being breached and this House will be able to do absolutely nothing about it.

Mr. Straw

The right hon. Gentleman's first point is half serious. However, page 152 of the document that I put before the House shows that the protocol provides a far better scrutiny procedure than currently exists. I commend the European Scrutiny Committee for its work, but the problem is that it does that work only at a late stage in the legislative procedure. The protocol proposes that that should happen much earlier. I and my ministerial colleagues in the EU are determined to make the protocol a reality, and it will then be up to this House to seize the opportunity. I repeat that I have been in the vanguard of making proposals to the House to strengthen how it and the other place scrutinise our work inside the EU. That is increasingly welcomed in Brussels.

The right hon. Member for Wells made a second point in his intervention. I wonder what his women constituents will think when they hear that he objects to a straightforward declaration—which has no direct legal effect—against domestic violence across Europe. The right hon. Gentleman's position is absolutely extraordinary.

Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab)

As someone who supported with vigour the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, I am very pleased by what my right hon. Friend had to say about domestic violence. However, does he agree that the question of a European constitution is often used by the Opposition to frighten people about a so-called European state? It is not as though only states have constitutions. The rugby and cricket clubs in my area also have constitutions, but none of them can claim to be a state. Is not the Opposition's attack designed to frighten people away from the benefits of Europe? Does it not have more to do with the Conservative party's natural 788 Euroscepticism, the divisions within it and its confusion about the messages from the public than with the treaty itself?

Mr. Straw

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)

It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say what he has said about scrutiny, but what is the point of scrutiny if, when people in this country say that they do not want something to happen here, they are unable to implement that decision by means of the veto? Will not the constitution mean that we will lose the right to exercise the veto in 42 areas? A good practical example of that is the recent problem with vitamins. Many sensible people in this country wanted to continue to use certain vitamins. We made it clear that we did not want the proposed change to happen here, but it was simply bulldozed through by an elite in Europe that does not really care about ordinary people.

Mr. Straw

The Government will continue to ensure that the veto is maintained in respect of key areas of vital national interest. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spelled that out, as have I. The White Paper also makes that very clear. The vitamins regulations have nothing to do with what is in the draft constitutional treaty, as they arise from existing legislation passed under the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, for both of which the Conservatives were responsible.

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) worked with me on justice and home affairs issues. She will remember that we dealt with them not by walking away from the touchlines and out of the stands, but by getting engaged. Time after time, when we are engaged, we win for Britain. That was the experience for the Conservatives in the early 1980s, but the experience was the exact opposite when the Leader of the Opposition was running EU policy in the early 1990s. Finally, most of the 40 or so issues to which the question of the veto is relevant are pretty obscure.

Several hon. Members

rose —

Mr. Straw

I want to provide some further reassurance for the right hon. Member for Wells. I have spelled out many of the areas in which the roles of national Governments, nation states and national Parliaments will be enhanced by the new draft constitution. I have spelled out how the draft meets one of the Leader of the Opposition's key red lines—that some member states should be able to advance faster than others. That process is called enhanced cooperation.

Another reason why some hon. Members—those who want the UK to leave the EU altogether—should vote in favour of the draft constitution is that, at present, there is no procedure that allows member states to denounce the treaties and leave The present provisions can only produce a mess. Article 159 provides a very clear procedure for member states to leave the EU. I do not believe that to do so would be in our interest, but the 789 option should be available. The draft constitutional treaty provides for that option, where existing provisions do not.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con)

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw

No. I want to make progress.

One would have thought that the Opposition would welcome the benefits in the constitutional treaty most warmly. After all, they say that they want a more flexible Europe and a stronger role for member states and their Parliaments, and this treaty will deliver all that. Instead, even before we have the finalised text, the Leader of the Opposition is committed to rejecting it, whatever it says. It is no surprise that he and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) are busying themselves, not with arguments based on the reality of this text, but with spreading myths about it that bear little or no relation to the facts.

Let us look at some of those myths. First, there is the myth raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)—that the existence of a constitution makes the EU a country. My hon. Friend noted that plenty of organisations have constitutions. Golf clubs and the Boy Scouts have them—as does Kent county council, which covers the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) wrote a very good piece for his local newspaper the other day. In it, he placed the argument that having a constitution makes an organisation a state into the bears-are-black, this-is-black-therefore-it-is-a-bear category". It is a complete nonsense to say that the existence of an EU constitution means that the EU must be a country. Opposition Members need to produce a much more intelligent level of debate and criticism.

Every international organisation needs a rule book, including the EU. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes knows enough about law to know very well that the legal status of the constitutional treaty would be the same as its predecessors—that is, a treaty under international law. We will judge the treaty by what it does. It will not build a superstate, but it will strengthen the nations in a modernised EU.

Mr. Bellingham

Will the Foreign Secretary give way on that point?

Mr. Straw

No, I want to make progress.

Next, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes has claimed that the charter of fundamental rights incorporated in the treaty will stop us from running our own industrial relations policy. It will not, as article 2.28 spells out very clearly. The text makes it clear that the charter would create no EU powers, and that general rights such as the right to strike are subject to "national laws and practices". We shall ensure that we have legal certainty in the way that that is interpreted.

Next, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes says that we will hand over control of our foreign policy, but what he objects to is already in the treaty of Maastricht, which he wholeheartedly supported. The 790 present shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), wrote in The Sunday Telegraph of 7 March 1993: Post-Maastricht, Britain and France become the mouthpieces for the European Union at the UN. That was the prediction but, when I appeared before the Security Council on behalf of this country, I did not get the impression that France was appearing as a mouthpiece of the EU, and neither was I there as a mouthpiece of the EU. France spoke for France, and I spoke for the UK. The prediction therefore turned out to be complete nonsense, but that has not stopped the Opposition from peddling the same myth 12 years on.

Any new treaty to which we agree will keep the national veto for foreign policy. That means that the EU will act together only when every member, including Britain, agrees to do so. There are other scare stories about the primacy of EU law, but the veto has been a fact since the EU's inception, and was part of the terms of our membership. It was written into UK law by section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.

Today's Opposition spend a great deal of effort denigrating and demeaning the EU while suggesting, unconvincingly, that they still want Britain to remain a member. They square that circle by claiming that they would renegotiate Britain's membership. Far from representing some sort of centre ground, however, that policy of renegotiation has long been espoused by isolationist anti-Europeans both inside and outside the Conservative party. It was the rallying cry of the Maastricht rebels in the early 1990s, and it was taken on by Sir James Goldsmith in the run up to the 1997 general election. Until recently, the Conservative leadership rightly rejected it. Baroness Thatcher never touched the idea of withdrawing from EU membership. John Major called it "absurd". Even the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) refused to go there. Yet today's Conservative leadership—eager to appease the hard-liners and the Europhobes—is now committed to what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) described a few weeks ago as a "thoroughgoing renegotiation".

Mr. Ancram

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the Conservative leadership has never suggested withdrawal from the European Union. Will he confirm that the only leadership of a major party ever to do so was that of his party in 1983? Will he also confirm that he supported his leadership in that?

Mr. Straw

What we did in 1983 provides, I think, a very good case study in how to suffer the most devastating defeat in electoral history. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue that course. He has, incidentally, given me an opportunity to give a wider audience to a most perceptive piece in The Times on Monday by Mr. Tim Hames, who wrote that the pledge of withdrawal and exit from the EU is not a pledge that the Conservatives can deliver and, if they could, Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, is hardly the figure to do so credibly. Mr Ancram is, somewhat grandly, to deliver a lecture next month entitled 'Whither India?' After his performance over the past few weeks, India might respond by organising an address called 'Whither Michael Ancram?'

Let me be clear about what thoroughgoing renegotiation would involve. It would mean withdrawing from the common fisheries policy, as 791 signed up to by the Conservatives. It would involve withdrawing from the EU's overseas aid system, as praised by Margaret Thatcher and signed up to by the Conservatives. It would involve "abandoning"—the word used by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes—the common foreign and security policy, as signed up to by the Conservatives and actively supported in the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. And it would mean withdrawing from the social chapter.

The hard-liners do not even want to stop there, and why should they? Some want Britain to withdraw from the common agricultural policy. Some even question fundamental concepts, such as the primacy of EU law and qualified majority voting. It all sounds deceptively easy—a pick-and-mix approach, where you can have your cake and eat it. But it is a sham. The big problem for the Conservatives is that renegotiating the terms of Britain's membership requires the unanimous agreement of all 24 other member states of the EU.

For the Europhobes, that, of course, is exactly the point. Because when the so-called renegotiation failed—as it surely would—Britain would have no option but to withdraw. The Conservative leadership, notwithstanding the denials that we have heard today, is gradually being pushed into that place. Last Wednesday, we had the most extraordinary spectacle as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe went on the radio—I heard every word—to offer his view about what would happen if "renegotiation" of the common fisheries policy failed to secure the agreement of the other 24 member states. He said, explicitly, that the Conservatives would not withdraw from the European Union: That was not the way in which it was done before, and I do not think it would be sensible again. But then, within four hours, after huge pressure and panic in the Conservative party, the right hon. and learned Leader of the Opposition adopted the extraordinary device of writing a letter to his own shadow Fisheries Minister to set out the position in greater detail, saying should negotiation not succeed … we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring about full national and local control.

Mr. Ancram

indicated assent.

Mr. Straw

That is right, says the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, but this is where the position of the Conservative party is simply a deceit and a sham. Unilateral withdrawal from international treaty obligations on that scale would completely undermine our continued membership of the European Union. Such an organisation can operate only if all member states agree to abide by the rules.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands up to talk about withdrawing from the common fisheries policy and seeking to impose unilaterally legislation that undermines—[Interruption.] He mutters about the growth and stability pact, but that is not inside the treaties while the common fisheries policy is: if he does not understand that, he understands absolutely nothing about the legal basis of the European Union.

792 The right hon. and learned Gentleman must stand up and explain how, when and if a new fishing Bill is put through to "repatriate" the common fisheries policy, it will be consistent with obligations in the accession treaty that we entered into in 1972, and which his Government reconfirmed time, time and time again. Then he has to explain whether we would pay the fines that the European Court of Justice would impose on us for our breach of treaty obligations. Then he has to spell out what would happen in British courts when those disadvantaged by the change in national law claimed their treaty rights, which are also part of British law. I can tell him what would happen then: as long as we remained inside the European Union, the British courts would find in favour of the treaty rights. Next, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to explain how his exercise would lead to absolutely nothing except the humiliation of the United Kingdom. He needs to stand up and spell all that out.

Were we to go down the road of withdrawal, as an increasing number of members of the Conservative party want to do, we must be clear that it would not be cost free, as the Conservatives try to pretend. I invite hon. Members to read the interesting article in The Independent today that spells out the fact that not being a member of the European Union would not be cost free.

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)

Rubbish.

Mr. Straw

Rubbish, we are told. But it would mean applying European legislation while having no say in deciding it. It would mean contributing to the European Union budget but getting almost nothing back—Norway alone pays €230 million a year to finance EU enlargement. British exporters, who can today trade free of obstacle throughout Europe, would have to fill out a 12-page form every time they wanted to send their products across the channel—extra red tape, extra costs and extra delays.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

Nonsense.

Mr. Straw

The right hon. Gentleman can say that, but I have the form here and will happily give it to him, all 12 pages of it. The Conservatives talk about trying to scale back bureaucracy and red tape, but withdrawing from the European Union would disadvantage every business in Britain and increase red tape.

Withdrawal would also mean losing the global influence that we have as part of the single market, with a quarter of world gross domestic product and a third of world trade. That is the vision that the Eurosceptics of the Conservative party have of Britain. It is not my view; nor, I believe, is it the view of the majority of British people.

At the beginning of this speech, I quoted a passage from Margaret Thatcher offering high and justified praise for the European Union. That was in the early 1980s, when the Conservative party was actively and constructively engaged in the European Union, campaigning for qualified majority voting to ensure that the single market would work and for a common foreign 793 and defence policy. However, as the Conservative party became more and more despondent about its own long-term future, so it became about Britain's influence in the world. Therefore, as it has done repeatedly over two centuries, the Conservative party turned in on itself on the issue of the UK's relations with the rest of the world, particularly Europe. Conservative pessimism has produced a defeatist attitude to Europe and a similarly defeatist view of Britain's place in the world. It is a view based on the belief that Britain can never succeed in Europe, and that all we can aspire to do is to hold back the tide. It betrays a total lack of confidence in the force of Britain's influence.

We take a different view. By engaging in Europe, we can lead reform. If we put Britain at the margins, our partners will go ahead and, quite naturally, arrange things that may not suit us. If we want Europe to pursue the right policies to make us more prosperous and more competitive in the world, we need to be at the centre of decisions, making our case and winning the arguments. That has been our approach on the constitutional treaty. We have made clear what we will not accept, but we have also shaped the debate in our favour. Now we have the chance to agree a treaty that encapsulates Britain's vision of an effective, reforming Europe, in which 25 proud and rather different nations can work together to enhance their prosperity and their power.

It is a chance that the Government are determined to seize. If a treaty is agreed, we will make the case for that kind of Europe to Parliament and then to the British people, who will have the final say The case will be for a Europe in which Britain is stronger, not weaker; winning, not whining; powerful, not powerless. And we will be negotiating for a treaty that sets out the framework of a modern and effective Europe of nations, in which Britain is leading reform to ensure that the organisations from which we have benefited so much in the past continue to deliver the jobs, growth and security that we want in the future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt this excellent debate, but I wish to apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), to you and to the House for not being in my place for his ten-minute Bill a few moments ago. It was a complete oversight on my part and I apologise for the discourtesy that was shown to the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge) (Con)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is very gracious of the Minister to return to the House to make that apology, which does not always happen. I accept his apology entirely, and I hope that he will read my speech and become a champion for puffins and sea squirts.

Mr. Speaker

Thank you. I call Mr. Ancram.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con)

Before that dignified apology by the Under-Secretary, the House was being entertained by one of the Foreign Secretary's famous rants. Interestingly, he spoke for 40 minutes 794 before he came on to what his party stands for in Europe. He spent most of the rest of the time attacking what he said my party stands for. I have learned one thing about the Foreign Secretary, and it is that when he rants like that it is a sign of uncertainty.

Hon. Members will recall a debate earlier this year when I called for a referendum on the European constitution. In reply, we heard a remarkable rant from the Foreign Secretary, in which he told us how disgraceful an idea it was even to suggest a referendum on such an issue. He gave me all the reasons why a referendum would be wrong and then, 10 days later and apparently at his direction, the Government changed their mind. I am not sure what we should read into his rant today. Perhaps our wish will come true and the Government will go to Brussels and say no to the constitution.

These biannual debates on European affairs, which occur shortly before the meetings of the Heads of Government in the European Council, are traditionally useful occasions when Members of Parliament, as elected representatives of the British people, can express our views on the position that the Prime Minister should take at the summit. Rarely can there have been a debate as relevant and timely as today's. On the day before the Prime Minister flies to Brussels to finalise agreement on the European constitution and three days after the results of the European Parliament election results were declared, there can never have been a clearer message for him to carry to the Council: the British people do not want this constitution.

A year ago, when the full impact of the draft constitutions became apparent, it was publicly argued that if people did not like what they were offered, they could vote against the Government in the European elections this year. The elections, it was argued, would more or less coincide with the end of the process on the constitution, and we were given to understand that the Government would be quite happy to fight the … European elections on a Labour platform endorsing this treaty, and the Conservatives can oppose it, and then the people will decide. Those are not my words, but those of the Leader of the House on the "Today" programme on 27 May last year. Well, the people have decided.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the votes of the Scottish people as an endorsement—he claimed—of his position on fishing. Interestingly, he did not talk about the national results. In last week's election, more than 50 per cent. of people voted for parties opposed to the constitution. If the Prime Minister presses ahead with agreeing the constitution, he will do so in the face of the democratically expressed will of the British people. If he does so, he cannot claim that he is representing the British people. That vote has rendered invalid his mandate to agree the constitution, if he ever had one. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes his usual protestations, but my understanding is that one has a mandate to do something that was in one's manifesto. Perhaps he could show me where the Labour manifesto for 2001 makes any mention of the introduction of a European constitution. After that vote, the Prime Minister has no 795 moral authority to agree the constitution. He should heed the will of the British people and go to Brussels and say no. If he does, we for our part would welcome it.

Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)

Most of the British people are not aware of the detail of the constitution, so I do not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say that they are against it. I think that they would welcome greater co-operation on measures to tackle illegal immigration and asylum, and the enhanced power of the nation state that the constitution contains. The Conservatives have got this all wrong.

Mr. Ancram

We do not need a constitution to do any of the things that the hon. Lady mentions. She appears to scorn the advice given by the Leader of the House, who saw the elections as a chance for the British people to pronounce on the constitution. The British people took up that invitation and they have clearly spoken.

I fear that the Prime Minister will not return from Brussels having said no to the constitution. He will tell us proudly about his red lines, which are part of a carefully choreographed battle for British interests that have already been conceded by his European colleagues, but which must appear to be fought and won in the battle of spin to allow him to claim victory. It will be a hollow and deceptive victory, because it will not deal with the real dangers to British interests that the constitution poses.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Prime Minister could veto every aspect of the constitutional treaty that he did not like, and he could go further and say that he would also veto enhanced co-operation, which France and Germany want, unless they give us our fish back? Would that not be a sensible approach in the negotiations?

Mr. Ancram

My right hon. Friend sets out an important fact ignored by the Government, which is that negotiations are about such arguments—getting what one wants, sometimes in return for something that someone else wants. But this Government do not negotiate. They never argue Britain's corner. Indeed, from what they have said recently, they appear to believe that negotiation means saying to colleagues, "We want this, but if you don't want to give it to us, we will not press you any further."

In the next two days, we shall hear a lot about the so-called red lines. It has already started, with talk in today's newspapers of keeping national vetoes for treaty change, tax, social security, defence, criminal procedure and, as a general rule, foreign policy. We were told that there was no need for a European public prosecutor. I thought that the Foreign Secretary might tell us today what was happening on that, but he was too busy talking about us. Making the charter of fundamental rights anything other than a political declaration was also to 796 be a red line. The Government will undoubtedly claim that if those points are met, the constitution will be acceptable.

Mr. Straw

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the European public prosecutor, but we have a veto over whether it even happens.

Mr. Ancram

I presume that the Foreign Secretary hopes to be able to tell the House when he returns that he has achieved all his red lines. However, he may remember that he told us in December that they had already been achieved.

Admittedly, if the red lines were not met, the constitution would be even worse. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, in reality the red lines are red herrings—a last-ditch and somewhat desperate distraction from the fact that, even in the Government's own terms, the current text is very different from the one they originally aimed for.

During the course of the Convention on the Future of Europe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) will recall, the Government tabled 275 amendments to the text of the constitution. Only 10 were accepted into the final text. To put it in football parlance, the score to date is Giscard 265, British Government 10! So what happened to the other 265 important amendments? Let us look at just a few. Last year, the Leader of the House tried to strike out the article giving the constitution legal primacy. So why is that not still a red line?

On the question of an EU Foreign Minister, the Leader of the House wrote: We do not accept the title 'Foreign Minister' as it is misleading as he/she will have no Ministry … We suggest 'EU External Representative'. What an extraordinary phrase. The Leader of the House continued: This is unacceptable as it stands. So why is it no longer a red line? Is it because the Government are now hell-bent on creating an EU diplomatic service, with its own embassies and its own ambassadors working to its own Foreign Minister?

The Government wanted to rewrite completely the article on asylum. They described it as "a fundamentally important amendment". They failed. So why is that no longer a red line?

Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central) (Lab)

Is there any new provision in the treaty that the right hon. and learned Gentleman actively supports? Or is his position one of blanket opposition, in order to mimic Robert Kilroy-Silk without having the integrity to advocate withdrawal?

Mr. Ancram

If the hon. Gentleman had read our manifesto for the European elections, he would know that we actually support the principle of what the Foreign Secretary called the yellow card provision to enable national Parliaments to exercise a veto, but we do not think that it goes far enough. Indeed, like us, some Labour Back Benchers have suggested that the yellow 797 card should become a red card. That is how we can ensure that we achieve stronger support and ability for national Parliaments.

Mr. Straw

So is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he does not want national Governments to have a greater and more enhanced role in the running of the European Union, which will be achieved by a full-time chairman but cannot be achieved by a rotating presidency that would take 12 and a half years to come around for each member state? Does he object to what is in article I-11, which for the first time provides, as the Leader of the Opposition called for only half an hour ago, for powers to be repatriated from the EU back to member states?

Mr. Ancram

Once again, the Foreign Secretary raises the extraordinary idea that if the head of the Council is not an active politician in his domestic Parliament—someone who does not represent a Government in the EU—that somehow strengthens the position of national Parliaments. He should take the time to visit some of the accession countries, which feel that that would remove their ability to influence the European Union because they would never have a chance to take part in its presidency.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably know that neither red nor yellow cards will have an impact on the exclusive competences of the EU. That being agreed, why did a Scottish Conservative MEP, Struan Stevenson, propose in the European Parliament that fishing should be an exclusive competence of the European Union?

Mr. Ancram

I can say only that Struan Stevenson stood on the manifesto at the European elections—[Interruption.] Under our present system for electing our MEPs, devised by the Government, candidates stand only on their party's manifesto, and our manifesto makes it clear that our position on repatriating control over fisheries is maintained.

I was asking what had happened to all the other amendments. Why have they apparently been surrendered? I shall not try the patience of the House by going through the whole long list, but unless the great bulk of those amendments is secured by the Prime Minister this week, the Government will have done something quite extraordinary they will have demonstrably failed—not in our terms, nor even in the terms of the British people, but in their own terms. What the Prime Minister will be facing tomorrow is not a tidying-up exercise, not a mere consolidation of existing treaties, but what the Belgian Prime Minister has described as the "capstone" of a federal state.

If we are to believe that the Government are fighting to protect British interests, there are some simple benchmarks. The Prime Minister should firmly say no to any constitution. Countries have constitutions; the EU 798 is not a country and must never aspire to become one. Indeed, only three years ago the Prime Minister told us that a constitution was not necessary.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab)

rose—

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North) (Lab)

rose—

Mr. Ancram

I will give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) for old times' sake.

Mr. Savidge

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the Conservative party has a constitution? I would concede that it is in a state.

Mr. Ancram

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the EU constitution, but if he thinks that a political party, or a golf club—one of the other organisations that is often mentioned—has 175-page constitutions of intense and obtuse language, I do not know where he has been. I know constitutions. I know golf clubs. This ain't no golf club constitution.

Apart from one slip of the tongue, the Foreign Secretary told us again that this was a constitutional treaty and thus somehow not a constitution. That is a form of sleight of hand, because the treaty describes itself as establishing a Constitution for Europe". Throughout, the document refers to "the Constitution" and until the Government accepts that it is a constitution we shall hear the sort of meaningless and irrelevant rant that we heard from the Foreign Secretary today.

Mr. Barnes

It is very courteous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give way. If the word "treaty" were to replace the word "constitution" throughout the document, would that be okay for him?

Mr. Ancram

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the document—[Interruption.] I am about to give the hon. Gentleman an answer—the Foreign Secretary really must restrain himself. He sits on the Treasury Bench chewing away and I know that he is anxious about the next few days, but he must restrain himself.

The document is a constitution; when one considers the way it is set out, it must be a constitution—it cannot be anything other than a constitution. When one has an elephant it is worth calling it an elephant; if one calls it other than an elephant, one tends to get trampled on.

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

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram

I shall give way in a moment. I want to make some progress.

The Prime Minister must meet other benchmarks. He has to say no to the constitutional imperative of a Europe "united ever more closely". We were told that that concept would be removed, but there has merely been a change in the wording—it actually means the 799 same thing. Following on that, he should say no to giving the EU a single legal personality. It does not need one unless it is seeking to become a state in its own right. It has not had one in the past and can perform perfectly well without one.

The Prime Minister should say no, as the Government tried to do in their earlier amendment, to the article giving the EU constitution legal primacy over our own. He should say no to the EU having control over our asylum or immigration policy. Of course, we can cooperate, but we should not be told what our policy is by Brussels.

The Prime Minister should say no to the EU having any control over our criminal law. Of course, we need to work together to fight international crime and terrorism, but that must not mean the emergence of an EU criminal code that supplants our own.

The Prime Minister should say no to the charter of fundamental fights. If it has only the legal force of the Beano it is unnecessary. If it has legal force, which our Government promised us it would not have, it must be opposed. I seem to remember that the Government's exact words were, "There is absolutely no possibility of us agreeing to this". We can look after our own fundamental rights. We do not need Europe's judges to tell us how to do it.

Sir Menzies Campbell

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram

I shall give way in a moment.

We must be wary of accepting bold assurances that attempts to harmonise taxes and to create a single foreign and security policy have been thwarted by the brave actions of our gallant Prime Minister. Left behind in the text will be the "aspirational" articles, I-14 and I-15, requiring co-ordination of economic policies within the Union and active and unreserved support for the Union's foreign and security policy, in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and compliance with the acts adopted by the Union in this area".

Mr. Straw

That was in the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Ancram

The right hon. Gentleman keeps shouting about Maastricht, but Maastricht was about an intergovernmental system; this constitution is creating something very different and those words have a very different meaning when they form part of a constitution.

If, in a constitutional context, the first of those two articles does not mean a long-term aim of achieving tax harmonisation, it is not only hard to see what it means but even harder to see why it is still in the document. If the Prime Minister's claims to have achieved that red line are to be believed, that should have gone, too.

The second article is even more serious. It could make anything that is not an EU common foreign policy justiciable before the European Court of Justice. It is the backdoor to a single European foreign policy, something which would be disastrous for us and which the Government have also assured us would not happen. If the Prime Minister means that assurance, he must insist that that article goes, too.

800 I give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).

Sir Menzies Campbell

I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he has to some extent passed on from the point on which I wanted to intervene. He and I will have to agree to disagree about the word "constitution", but what does his party propose to do in the event that this legal instrument were not to receive the approval of the British people? Would his party be content to operate under the four existing treaties and the Single European Act? How would that provide the clarity that is necessary for a European Union expanded from the original six to 25?

Mr. Ancram

We have never had a problem with looking at what might loosely be called a charter of competences that sets out clearly what the European Union can do and what national Parliaments should be able to do. However, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that this document is an example of clarity, his time in the law may have clouded his judgment as to what is clear.

We are still told that the proposed constitution does not cross the threshold between the room marked "A Europe of Nations" and the room marked "A Sovereign European State". Perhaps, in totality, it does not, but it certainly moves from the anteroom of one to the anteroom of the other, and it does not take an immense step to move from one room to the other anyway.

Let me quote from the evidence given to the Lords Select Committee on the Constitution by Professor John McEldowney of the university of Warwick on 15 October last year. He said: While the Constitution may constitute the sum total of the existing Treaties revised and refined, it is also endowed with the 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. That goes to the absolute heart of why the constitution is objectionable.

If the Prime Minister was true to his past words and recognised the strength of feeling expressed by the British electorate last week, he would go to Brussels to say no, and I still hope for Britain's sake that he will, but I fear that he will not He is, after all, the Prime Minister who twice in the past four years has called for the creation—his worth, not mine—of a European superpower. That is the Government's real agenda. They talk the talk of the Europe of nations; they walk the walk of an increasingly integrated and politically united Europe.

The signs are there. First, we saw recently a report of Romano Prodi's group, set up under the chairmanship of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, including a former Government Minister and confidant of the Prime Minister, Lord Simon of Highbury. The report says that the formation of the EEC was no more than a first step in the federation of Europe. It clearly maps out the desired path and states: The time has now come to take the second step: that of the march towards political union".

801 Mr. Strauss-Khan helpfully explains how it will all be achieved: As demonstrated by the draft Constitutional Treaty, there will be no 'revolutionary leap' to a political Europe: it will be built by small reforming steps. He went on, very helpfully, to set out those steps. The first stage is to adopt the draft constitutional treaty produced by the European Convention. The second is to develop the context and the financing of Union policies in negotiations on the next financial perspective. The third is to bring to life the European model within the first European constitution. The fourth is to make use of the experience acquired to define the next political phase. He ended up by saying: The need to make further progress towards political union will become clear.

It is absolutely clear that that is a road map towards political union—he makes no pretence about it—and I find it strange that the Government are still denying that that is what the constitution is about, but we are told that that is not the Government's position. It might not be, except for another report—the declaration by the European Socialists party, published last February, called "Europe 2004—Changing the Future". That is an interesting document. For a start, it talks about eliminating all unfair competition between the national social security systems of our Member States. Where would that leave the Government's red line? It says: The idea of an international tax continues to gain ground and should be explored, such as a tax on speculative movements of capital, on CO2 emissions, or a global tax on multinational corporate profits. Again, where would that leave the Government's much proclaimed red line? It talks about "a common immigration policy" and a move towards single EU seats in the different international organisations. For a start, that would mean losing our seat on the United Nations Security Council to an EU representative who, on all past evidence, would rarely represent the British view—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary laughs. He ought to read that document; it is very informative.

We were told, much to my astonishment, that that was not the Government's position either. That argument does not work this time because that document—I have a copy here—is actually signed by the Minister for Europe. When that was disclosed, we were told, rather surprisingly, that he did so in his political rather than his ministerial capacity. Again, not quite: the document sets out against his signature the term "Minister for Europe, UK", so he signed it in that capacity.

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram

Not in that capacity—if the Minister for Europe does not speak for the Government on Europe, who does? The Deputy Prime Minister told me last week that that was not Government policy. All I can say is why is the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench as the Minister for Europe if what he now signs is not the Government's policy?

802 There is something rather endearing about the Minister for Europe. When the Government are busy laying down the usual smokescreens, he invariably—if I may mix a metaphor—lets the cat out of the bag, and this time the cat is the cat of further European integration, which has always covertly been the Government's aim. To disguise that, the Government, led by the Prime Minister and aped by the Minister for Europe, set out, extremely foolishly, to suggest that the only question on Europe was whether to stay in or get out. They sought quite deliberately to polarise the argument and to deny that there was any position in between. The result of that polarisation was clear on Sunday and the Government have only themselves to blame. They deliberately set out to try to hide the fact that there is another option—a more constructive, more sensible and more forward-looking way. It is our way, and the results of the election show that it was the option that secured the most votes.

Our policy would make the EU more open, more accountable and more efficient. It would be an EU that would not try to do everything, but that would do what it does better. We want to build a flexible Europe, following the precedents set by the opt-outs from the euro and the Schengen agreement, which shows how flexibly Europe can work. Enhanced co-operation enables some member states to go ahead with further integration, even when others do not want to do so. So countries that wanted to integrate still further could do so, but others would not be compelled to join them. That is why we keep on stressing the importance of a flexible Europe.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

I have heard many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches, and as I understand it he is arguing that he would never sign up to, negotiate or start to negotiate anything that looked like a constitutional treaty or a constitution of any kind, but that he would like a charter of competences, as I think he referred to it earlier. However, I have yet to find another country in Europe that is prepared to take part in that negotiation with him. Therefore, unless he is prepared to sign up to the treaty to allow a change in the process of negotiating the treaty, there is no means to establish what he wants.

Mr. Ancram

The hon. Gentleman should study not just this country's election result, but those right across Europe. If he did so, he would find some very strange results, with countries, particularly those that have just joined the EU—inasmuch as they bothered to vote at all—showing a very strong and healthy concern about the way that the constitution is directing Europe.

The Conservative approach will anchor national Parliaments at the heart of the EU law-making and decision-making process. As I said earlier, we want a red card system to be introduced: if, say, five or more national Parliaments object to new or existing European legislation on the grounds of subsidiarity or proportionality, it should be withdrawn or repealed, not just reviewed. The EU Commission should lose its monopoly right of initiative on legislation and share it with member states.

The current rotating Council presidency should be, and can be, reformed by establishing rotating team presidencies of perhaps one year, involving big and 803 small members. That would allow the burden of chairing the Council of the European Union to be shared between members, rather than held by an individual character for five years. The acquis communautaire needs to be systematically reviewed, so that powers that would be better administered by the nation states are returned to them. Defence and foreign affairs co-operation should be defined in practical, organisational terms. That would allow ad hoc coalitions and pan-European action where desirable and task specific, but all within the NATO structure. The common fisheries policy is emptying our seas of fish and utterly failing our fishermen, so we will negotiate to restore local and national control over British fisheries.

That will be the start. For too long, we have sat back as powers were leached away from national Parliaments to Brussels.

Mr. Straw

rose—

Mr. Ancram

I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—I have given way three times—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is clearly not prepared to give way.

Mr. Ancram

I give way to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Straw

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way; I shall try to reciprocate. On fishing, let us suppose that we repatriate the powers by a decision of the House and the other place. What happens when that repatriation of fishing powers turns out to be completely inconsistent with the treaties?

Mr. Ancram

That is the negative answer that we hear all the time. My criticism is that we have had two years of the renegotiation of treaties through the Convention and the process that has led to the constitution. The Government should have been arguing the case for our fishermen during those negotiations, but they did not. We will not find ourselves in that situation when we are in government. We will argue for British interests. Our case in negotiations will be strong, and we will succeed.

We have sat back for too long as powers were leeched away from national Parliaments to Brussels. We intend to reverse the conveyor belt by restoring to Westminster powers from Brussels that can be exercised better and more efficiently here. We are not alone, although the Foreign Secretary keeps trying to suggest that we are. The Dutch Foreign Minister, Bernard Bot, called for cultural policy, parts of the common agricultural policy and the social chapter to be returned to nation states' control. When the constitution fails, as I believe that it should and will, and Europe goes back to the drawing board, we will at last have the opportunity to negotiate a Europe in which the nations matter again.

The whole weight of evidence, argument and popular opinion is ranged against this wretched constitution. The opportunity to reject it and build a more people-friendly Europe is there. I fear that due to all the deeply 804 inculcated arrogance of new Labour and its contempt for democratic opinion, that opportunity will be squandered. I fear that the Prime Minister will return to the House on Monday full of tales of negotiating derring-do and red lines protected, but with an agreed and damaging constitution in his hand. If that happens, in the face of British public opinion, he should accept one valid challenge: put the constitution to the people in a referendum now. He should not wait 14 months in the hope that he can bamboozle the British people into supporting it. He should have the courage of his convictions, get on with it, and let the people decide. He could do even better by the British people by going to Brussels this weekend and rejecting the constitution now.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)

Although this point has fortunately not flowed into the debate, I was surprised by the reaction of both major parties to the European election results because the most striking thing about them was the increase in the vote for the UK Independence party and the National—non-Jordan—Front. The reaction of the party leaders seemed to be that we should dismiss the support for UKIP and the National Front, but that would be like adopting the old Militant argument from 1983 that if people did not vote for our Trotskyite policies, we should change the electorate rather than our policies. I do not mind hearing a few jokes about how a permatan can be maintained in the European Parliament—it is quite possible to maintain one here in the British Parliament. Wondering about how my friend Robert Kilroy-Silk will maintain an income and an audience in his new role is harmless stuff. However, it would be dangerous to dismiss what the electorate told us through the vote.

I do not think that the electorate told us that they want to come out of Europe. That is not a salient issue, and we waste far too much time denouncing the possibility of withdrawal to create fear. If our only defence of the proposed constitution is that the alternative is withdrawal, it has no defence at all. The people were not making that point about Europe. Opinion polls show that British public opinion has consistently been divided, with about 40 per cent. of people thinking that our relationship with Europe is a bad thing and about 40 per cent. thinking that it is a good thing. The rest are undecided about, disinterested in, or bored by, the whole affair.

British people do not have a passionate belief in withdrawal, but they are not happy with Europe, our relationship with Europe, the stream of regulations and commitments that is handed down to us, or the projects of the Euro-enthusiastic elite for whom Europe is a matter of religion rather than national interest. The reality of the situation is that the Euro-enthusiastic elite are foisted on us, so the electorate are saying, "No more than that." However, the fact that they are saying such a thing means that it could be dangerous to rush into or propose any endorsement of the European constitution. Such an action would put an imposition on the people—they do not want that.

A pathetic argument on the front page of today's edition of The Independent predicts the horrifying consequences of withdrawal, such as national 805 disintegration and dissolution. As if European countries would stop sending us manufactured goods. We are told that we do well with trade at present, but that we have constantly been in deficit, so this country would lose manufacturing jobs to Europe. As if European countries would stop forcing their overpriced food on us and stop us from buying food on the cheapest market, which is usually the world market. As if they would stop us passing social legislation for our purposes so that we may handle social provisions in our own way. All that is nonsense within the debate.

Mr. Salmond

The hon. Gentleman has great experience of these matters, so will he explain why the constitution, as proposed, has only four exclusive competences: the customs union; the commercial policy of the single market; the euro, for those who are in it; and the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy? Why is the Foreign Secretary so reluctant to correct an obvious historical blunder that has given the fisheries policy such a status?

Mr. Mitchell

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. The constitution must be the first in the whole world to include fish. I read several constitutions during my days as a political science lecturer, but I never found one that included the marine biological resources of the sea and fish. What is the basis on which that is being done? I think that the exclusive competence will extend competences because it will apply to not only the 12-mile limit but right up to the beaches, which was not envisaged even when the Conservative Government signed up to the common fisheries policy. The inclusion of that competence is a mystery. However, the provision is ominous because the fact that it is included implies that it has a purpose, but that would have to be damaging to our national fishing interests. That is only one aspect of the constitution that worries me.

We were told that the constitution represented a tidying-up operation to make way for new member states, but we were also told that the Nice treaty would do that job for us—it was sold to us and pushed through the House on exactly the same basis. Evidently, more tidying-up is necessary, so I have no doubt that more will come later.

The constitution is a product of the European elite. Euro-enthusiasm and commitment to the European vision were prior requirements for those who participated in the Convention that produced it. Critics and Eurosceptics formed only a pathetically tiny minority of the people involved in its production, although the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), maintained a consistently critical stance.

The arrangement shows how Brussels and its bureaucratic elite are constantly striving for an ever-closer Union. There is a constant desire to breed a 1950s-style centralising state that hands down rules and decrees along the lines of the mode of the French state, which has a powerful bureaucracy to drive it. However, the time has passed for exactly that kind of state. People no longer want such states. Even the European bloc is less relevant in a world in which tariff barriers are 806 falling, there is greater emphasis on corporations, globalisation makes for common standards and every barrier is coming down.

A bloc such as Europe is less and less relevant and less and less necessary, but there is still a drive from the centre to turn it into a state of a type whose time has passed. There is no need now for a European state that is constantly strengthened in that way. Enlargement sounded the death knell of that process, and this constitution is its last throe—an attempt to reverse the consequences of enlargement, which means that, as an association, Europe will be not only bigger but looser. One cannot impose the framework of a state on such a diverse, massive population or collection of nations. This is the last desperate throe of outdated centralism, but it is still dangerous and we in this country should oppose it.

We want national management of our fishery resources, and I support the desire to come out of the common fisheries policy, but it is not only on fishing that we should oppose the constitution. It will transfer more power to the centre and create a situation in which more power still can be transferred to the centre. I refer here to the excellent Fabian Society pamphlet "The Making of Europe's Constitution" by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, in which she raises several of the dangerous points that are still implicit in the constitution. She says that assent for changes moves to the European institutions, without the further involvement of Westminster or other national Parliaments. She argues further that the constitution gives the Commission wider powers to act where there is no specific treaty basis for that action. She adds that the draft Constitution contains no mechanism to review and return powers from the Union to Member States and it has rigid rules to determine future actions or how power is to be exercised but it also initiates processes.

My hon. Friend says that in practice the present scope of the acquis"— the acquis communautaire that all the new members have to accept— is not reconcilable with the professed objective of subsidiarity and taking decisions at the lowest feasible level. That is absolutely true. We have a massive acquis of regulations imposed from the centre. My hon. Friend goes on to say: The draft Constitution proposes in at least 36 separate policy areas that the national veto is to be abolished".

Finally, there is the question of the EU having its own resources, which is central to the ideas of Giscard d'Estaing. The constitution is so long, so turgid and so complex that it is like the Schleswig-Holstein question beloved of Lord Palmerston, and anyone who says that they understand it and its implications is either insane or a genius. I do not think that there are many of either calibre on either Front Bench. I therefore think that the question of own resources is an open one, but steps seem to be being taken towards providing those.

Mr. Salmond

rose—

Mr. Mitchell

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is going to explain the issue to me; I will be very grateful if he does.

Mr. Salmond

The hon. Gentleman is mad and I have forgotten. I agree that a long document is capable of different interpretations, but, in my interpretation, on anything that is a shared competence we have the protection of article 1.11, which the Foreign Secretary specified, and we are covered by subsidiarity, but anything that is an exclusive competence has neither of those protections. That is why I am so concerned—as, I know, is the hon. Gentleman—that fisheries have ended up in the wrong category.

Mr. Mitchell

That may well be the position, and since we are dealing with abnormal psychology here, in which I am not an expert, although I accept that the Scottish National party may be, I will have to accept that explanation.

Our interests in Europe lie not with this constitution but in a looser association in which we can, if we want, pick and mix. There are proposals for strengthening the constitution's central core, but there are no proposals for allowing the kind of pick-and-mix process that is in our interests. All parties have been saying for decades that we will fundamentally reform the common agricultural policy, but it never happ