William Cash MP Speech and Defeated Amendment

Yesterday Parliament moved further in removing the rule of law from the citizens of our country. This is from the pdf of the Official Report by Hansard, linked here (report continues in Column 817)

5.32 pm
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): I beg to move
amendment (a), in line 10, leave out from ‘and’ to end
and add
‘whilst welcoming the Government’s desire to seek safeguards for
the UK, calls on the Government in respect of Regulation (EC)
No. 1093/2010 to use its best endeavours to ensure that the
proposed changes in the voting rights in the European Banking
Authority are not adopted, to use its veto in respect of European
Union Document No. 13683/12 so as to ensure that the powers of
the Governing Council of the European Central Bank are not
unlawfully delegated to the Single Supervisory Mechanism without
an amendment of the treaties and/or to refer that matter to the
European Court of Justice for adjudication of that proposal.’.
I am deeply troubled by the wording of the motion.
In my judgment, it simply does not make sense to state
that the House should welcome
“the Government’s decision to remain outside the new supervisory
arrangements while protecting the single market in financial
services.”
We acquiesced in to the Lisbon treaty, the Labour party
agreed to the transfer of jurisdiction over the City of
London to theEU,whichwaswrong—the Single European
Act was never remotely intended to produce such a
result—and, furthermore, views I have received from
the City clearly demonstrate that it does not believe that
the proposals in the motion will protect the UK or a
single market in financial services.
There is another massive issue about the rule of law
in Europe. The Foreign Secretary, in his speech to the
Körber Foundation conference in Berlin a fortnight
ago, said that what bound us together in the EU and the
reason for the Government wanting to remain part of it
was that it
“has helped to spread and entrench democracy and the rule of
law across Europe.”
The tragic reality is that the EU does not subscribe to
the rule of law. On 17 December 2010, Madame Lagarde
said about the first bail-out fund, the European financial
stability mechanism:
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks
and really rescue the euro zone.”
Germany and France themselves broke the stability and
growth pact. Furthermore, both the Government and
the Attorney-General are clearly of the view that the
agreement on the fiscal compact was unlawful, but in
reality nothing has been done—hence my call for the
legal reserve on this matter, although the legal reserve
issued before has never been implemented.
The Government know that the proposals referred to
in the second part of my amendment are unlawful. The
Council of Ministers’ own legal adviser, in a lengthy
opinion which I have seen and which the Government
cannot dispute, states that there will have to be an
amendment to the treaties if the powers of the governing
council of the ECB are to be delegated to the single
supervisory mechanism.
The legal opinion says on the proposal amending the
EBA regulation, in effect, that in terms of the EBA’s
dispute resolution powers there is no justification for
treating the ECB differently from banking authorities
in non-eurozone member states by exempting it from
those powers. To do so would be a clear breach of the
principle in law of non-discrimination.
As to the proposal giving the ECB prudential oversight
of credit institutions in the eurozone, the legal opinion
states that in establishing the single supervisory mechanism
the councilmust respect the legal framework for decision
making within the ECB set by primary law—that is, the
treaties.This framework does not allowtheECB’s governing
council to delegate decision-making functions on banking
supervision to a subsidiary body such as the SSM.
There is nothing in the legal base for the SSM proposal,
in article 127(6) of the treaty on the functioning of the
European Union,whichwould permit secondary law—that
is, this draft regulation—amending the rules laid down
in primary law. There is no question about it and the
Government know that.
Non-eurozone member states are not entitled to
participate in the ECB’s decision making, so they can
have no formal decision-making role in the SSM as
conceived. Furthermore, the law on banking supervision
in the EU will be made up of directives to a significant
extent. This is a requirement of the treaties. That means
that the ECB cannot propose one-size-fits-all legislation
on banking union. Rather, it can propose legislation
which allows for differences in national transposition.
We simply cannot countenance a situation in which
there is a wilful breach of the rule of law and where the
dysfunctional European Union vaunts the rule of law,
yet deliberately breaks its own rules. This is precisely
what led to the kind of constitutional crisis that we have
seen in our own history when Governments from the
Stuarts onwards claimed a divine right to rule but then
broke the common law. This is the primrose path to
constitutional disaster not only for the United Kingdom,
but for Europe as a whole. I hope the House will
understand my concern, as I suggested back in the
1990s that this would happen.
I hear what the Minister says but I cannot understand
why and how, given comments that I have received from
the City of which I am sure he is aware. Those in the
City make it clear that the single market would be put at
risk by an imperfect single market in financial services
in which rules differed by level of membership of the
EU. Furthermore, they say:

(A more readable version will be available from Hansard shortly)

See also on this topic my tweets of last evening, on the now almost complete degradation of the Conservative Party.