European Affairs Debate

The Hansard report begins from here. Contributions of particular importance from my point of view are linked below: Mr David Heathcoat-Amory, here. Mr William Cash, here. Mr Richard Shepherd, here. The following are in my opinion the most critical points: Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): "These Europe debates are not simply formulaic; they are about the powers of this House and, by extension, of the people we represent. There has been a transfer of power, authority and decision making from this House to the European Union over many years, but if this constitution, as amended by the German proposals, goes through in anything like this form, it will be a giant step—a further emasculation of the powers of this House and an erosion of national self-government." "The Convention on the Future of Europe at least met in public, and I and others could report to the House on what was happening. The Government could also table amendments, and they tabled hundreds of them. Not many were accepted and they did not really like the final text, but at least we could discuss the British position. This time, it is all being done in secret, and that is a disgrace." "To make matters worse, all the way through the Convention on the Future of Europe, the Government told us sanctimoniously about the need to open up Europe, bring the citizens along and close the gap between the voters and leaders, but they do not do that at home. We are trying to export democracy to the middle east and we criticise China for its lack of democratic institutions, but when it comes to our own procedures, Ministers do not even tell us what has been happening in the negotiations.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree with the suggestion made earlier by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that some of the countries in eastern Europe that have gained democracy might have it for only a short time before it is shoved upwards to the European Union? They might have only a short period of real, genuine national democracy between living under Soviet rule and the rule of the European Union.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is an irony that in many cases those countries have given up rule from Moscow and swapped it for rule from Brussels. Their liberation was an immensely important event in the history of Europe. However, having achieved self-government, they are now in the process of giving it up."

"I want to make a final point, about the transfer of power to which I have referred already. It is not some dry, academic exercise but has to do with the essence of democracy. Who makes decisions, and where? To whom are they accountable? Are they voted in, and can they be removed? Those are the questions that need to be answered, and they are crucial. This House is a forum where majorities come and go and Governments change, where laws are enacted and withdrawn. That is what democracy is about. Handing such matters over to another jurisdiction, irrevocably, means that we will be losing the powers of the people we represent. We should let them decide whether they want the constitution." =============================== Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): "I have looked atthe mandate of the intergovernmental conference. I have also listened with great interest to the Foreign Secretary, having cross-examined her recently in the European Scrutiny Committee, where she admitted in so many words that she did not know the position of the United Kingdom Government or, indeed, of the European Union......" "The mandate states not only that

“The word ‘Community’ will throughout be replaced by the word ‘Union’”,

but

“it will be stated that the two Treaties constitute the Treaties on which the Union is founded and that the Union replaces and succeeds the Community.”

It then proceeds to the question of primacy.

We discussed the meaning of primacy a couple of years ago. It is well established, following the case of Costa v. ENEL, that there is an existing primacy in the European Union. I happen to take grave exception to the way in which it operates under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, which is why I raised with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, the question of the legislative supremacy of this House. It is completely absurd for us to be in the position of legislating simply because a decision has been made at European level, irrespective of the impact on the ordinary everyday lives of the people of this country.

Mr. Hoon: We have engaged in this debate over the past 15 years, but it is important to discuss the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Is not his criticism of the provision relating to the supremacy of Community law a criticism of this House and this Parliament, given that this House and this Parliament passed a provision in the 1972 Act accepting the supremacy of Community law?

Mr. Cash: Yes, it most emphatically is such a criticism. It was an enormous mistake to have done that in that way. An amendment of mine to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill—new clause 17—was supported by my party in the Commons and the Lords. It proposed in certain circumstances to override the 1972 Act, and, crucially, to require the judiciary to give effect to that latest expressly inconsistent enactment passed by this House on behalf of the electorate who put us in power.

Nothing is set in concrete forever; even the Minister will accept that things cannot remain static forever. In some circumstances, repatriation has blatantly become necessary. That is the sentiment of the British people, and it is probably also the sentiment of most other European countries. We must achieve the mechanism to deliver that, in the interests of the voters. [Interruption.] Is the Minister expressing approval? I think he must be, as he cannot disagree with my point. [Interruption.] I invite him to get up and disagree with me, by all means. We are talking about an important principle: democracy.

I do not dispute that the primacy of European law has been an established principle. That was set out under the Costa v. ENEL case of 1964—before we entered the EU—and there have been many other cases since. However, let me make my point on this subject by drawing an analogy with what happened in the 19th century, another time of enormous constitutional change. There was supremacy of Parliament before the passing of the Reform Acts, but it cannot be said that the supremacy of Parliament before the Reform Acts was the same as its supremacy after them. It was a new supremacy of Parliament, endorsed by its democratic accountability which came from everyone having been given the vote. Despite all the obfuscations and opaque and academic arguments about sovereignty that there are, the point I am making is simple. The question is whether the people of this country have the right to make the law through their elected representatives in line with their wishes in general elections.

The draft mandate states:

“Concerning the primacy of EU law, the IGC will adopt a Declaration recalling the existing case law of the EU Court of Justice.”

That is an unexceptional statement until that primacy is related to the new functions that are being conferred. Those new functions involve a structural changein the relationships between the United Kingdomand Europe—and between the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and the electorate of our country. That is a fundamental structural change. When we impose that new primacy, although there is no repeal provision as such, the proposed constitutional arrangements are so close to the existing ones under the treaty that the Minister and the rest of his party voted for, that any distinction that was made would be a distinction without a sufficient difference. That is the key point. If that argument stands up to scrutiny, which I believe it does, then it follows that we must have a referendum.

Something else follows as well. I am taking the trouble to explain my points on the mandate document because they are important. Between now and next Monday when the Prime Minister returns to the House and tells us what has happened over the weekend, I invite the Government to consider the following idea. Many people agree with me about the new mandate, and if am right it follows that there is a case for expressing a refusal to accept the proposals which is far more potent and useful than the case for offering a referendum. I ask my Front-Bench colleagues to listen to what I am about to say, too.

Although there is no technical opportunity to exercise a veto because the meeting is not an IGC—which seems to have escaped some people’s attention—it could be made clear that we will not accept these proposals on the following grounds: first, they confer further powers; secondly, this represents a fundamental change; and thirdly, it is perfectly clear that the provisions would be unacceptable to the people of this country."

=========================================

Mr. Richard Shepherd: "I enjoyed the exchange between the Minister for Europe and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), if only because the Minister has woken up. There is a placidity to these debates normally. I shall not follow that exchange, other than to note that all European treaties are of a constitutional nature. We need not fool around: the constitution was the last endeavour, and it is not called that any more, but from 1972 onwards, we have had a framework document—the originating treaty—that has governed the relationship of this House, this people and this nation to developing institutions in Europe.

Most of us in Britain—simple souls such as myself—did not understand the seriousness or greatness of the design. Why should we? I was outside the House in 1972. I believed in free trade areas and the decision was presented to the public as a free trade deal, so that was simple. But when I became a Member of Parliament, I began to read the documents and see what they actually entailed. The treaty is a clever, slowly evolving—not so slowly, because it is now rapidly accelerating—attempt to change the very nature of the Government of the UK. Other nations must speak for themselves.

The Foreign Secretary graced us with the inadequacy of her knowledge about the process by which we will arrive at our position over the next couple of days, and she bewildered us in that she has to maintain the position that, although we will have—or may have—a treaty, it will, if it does not meet the red lines that have been constructed by the Government but necessitates some change, be somehow not constitutional. That is what we are arguing about. We went from 1972 to the Single European Act, which Mrs. Thatcher ultimately said she would not have signed if she had known what would happen. She repudiated the decision in a sense, and to begin with I did not understand the difference between a single and a common market. America is a common market. The European government, in its approach to the market, is a single market. Which do I prefer? I prefer the common market, in which each of us competes, strives and controls, within the state system, what we judge to be best. That is not the ambition of that organisation..."

"The European Economic Community became the European Community in 1992 in the treaty of union, in which the word “economic” was a limitation on the powers of the European Court. The burden of my argument is that whatever comes before us will be the first snapshot and opportunity—which I would takeat every point of change—for people who were not born in 1972, or who did not understand what was happening, to have a vote on whether these arrangements should be allowed to take away a constitutional trust.

This country formed its own arrangements. We are in conflict about legal systems—about the civil versus the common-law tradition. There are many differences, but this Chamber, which Churchill called this “little room”, reflects something deep—the trust of those who send us here.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemanfor giving way. We do not always agree in thesedebates but I have always admired his commitment to parliamentary democracy and sovereignty. We have only ever had one national referendum in this country. How does he equate his commitment to parliamentary sovereignty with his apparent support for referendums?

Mr. Shepherd: Very easily. I believe in the Locke premise, which is that we cannot give things away without reference to the people. Churchill said that the people are sovereign, and I believe that we are merely their representatives. When this or any Government attempt to sell off or assign to others responsibility for judgments on great matters of public policy, that is a matter beyond our competence. It is a matter for the competence of the people as a whole, after an informed debate leading to a referendum. That is what I am arguing for.

I understand that the Minister for Europe may not know his Locke, but the thinking about these matters is very old. I can reconcile my approach, because the sovereignty of Parliament and democratic Government that we now espouse and promote—I am here by virtue of it—began with the autocratic dictatorship of monarchy and progressed through oligarchy. Our struggle has always been to hold the Crown in check, and that is what we do in this Chamber. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s majority means that the Crown is now with him in Downing street, but that is no excuse for us if we forget what our business is and where the trust of those whom we should serve lies. That is why the EU cannot satisfy the democratic question..."

The Minister is quieter now. Perhaps I have exhausted him, but the Foreign Office must pull itself together—or rather the Foreign Secretary must do so. We are in an absurd position. Two days before an important discussion about how the European Union will see its way through the misconceived judgments of the French and Dutch electorates, we are listening to a Prime Minister who is going out of the door having endorsed the constitution. That is the difficulty; he actually endorsed it.

The Prime Minister promised us a referendum should the constitution come about, although all his fingers and toes were crossed—we understand that—but the man who could endorse that and the Cabinet that could agree leave us doubtful as to their intent. I no longer trust the processes whereby Government proceed and accede to the European Union. It is disgraceful that we do not engage—that there is noway forward, no repatriation of powers and no understanding of what this country needs. That is why we must have a referendum."