European Union (Referendum) Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bain
It is a pleasure to speak in the Chamber for the first time under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a delight.
I shall speak to amendments 68 and 70, in my name, as well as new schedule 2, which is also in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). The reason why this group of amendments is so important is that the discussions between the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), and the Government have been in many ways one-sided. It has been an internal discussion within the Conservative party. It is time that that discussion is broadened out to include all the interest groups and all the people of this country who would be affected by the Bill and who would be affected—in my view, very badly indeed—if Britain chose to withdraw from the European Union.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does the Labour party accept the principle that there should be a referendum at all?
Mr Hain
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raises that issue as I will deal with it later on and call for greater consultation on the matter. Unless the facts are revealed objectively and all organisations are properly consulted, people will not be in a position to make a sensible decision about whether to vote yes or no in the referendum he seeks.
The great flaw in the Bill is that it proposes no such consultation and there is no obligation on the Government to consult anybody. Other than a campaign that will be compressed into a particular period, and the inevitable media focus at the time, there is no sense that everybody will be involved in the great debate on an historic issue for the future of Britain, and indeed Europe. The Bill sets an arbitrary time limit without placing any obligation on the Government to consult. The referendum itself will be the only “consultation”—by bouncing voters into a decision by the end of 2017 or, if the hon. Member for Windsor gets his way, by October 2014.
For example, the business community needs to be properly consulted—paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 specifies how it could be consulted. The CBI, to which specific reference is made in the new schedule, recently reported that eight out of 10 of its members, including roughly the same proportion of its small and medium-sized enterprise members, said that they would vote for the UK to remain a member of the EU if a referendum were held tomorrow. The CBI should be properly consulted, not simply presented with a referendum on an arbitrary date. Nearly three quarters of CBI member businesses reported that the UK’s membership of the EU has had a positive overall impact on their business. They should be consulted, too, so that everybody, whether employees or management, can transmit their view to the wider community.
Sir Edward Leigh
Labour Members appear to want to consult the CBI, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, which is fair enough, but are they in favour of consulting the British people in a referendum—yes or no?
Mr Hain
Labour has never been afraid of consulting people in referendums. We have called more referendums in our history than any other party. Labour is the only party that ever called a referendum on the EU—the Conservatives took us into membership of the Common Market without one. Labour Members have never been afraid to consult the people, and we have specified the circumstances in which we would hold a referendum.
Despite CBI member companies’ frustrations with many aspects of EU membership, which, as a pro-European, I share, more than half of them—some 52%—say that they have directly benefited from the introduction of common European standards. Only 15% suggested that that had had a negative impact. A consultation would reveal that and enable it to be properly debated, assessed and considered.
Those CBI members believe that UK influence has helped to maximise the openness of the EU. Some 72% of British businesses believe that the UK has a significant influence on EU policies that affect them.
Mr Hain
As a Scottish MP of high repute in this House, my hon. Friend presents his evidence with some credibility. He is right that the Scottish referendum process reinforces exactly the case we are putting for these amendments.
Those who want us to withdraw from the EU suggest that we can have our cake and eat it by staying within the European single market to retain the great bulk of our trade, which is with EU countries. Once again, this could be assessed through a proper consultation, as specified in amendment 68 and new schedule 2. Those who want to withdraw first argue that we would avoid the costs of membership, which they denounce as too high; secondly, they insist that EU regulations make our economy uncompetitive; and thirdly, they allege a loss of sovereignty that comes with European political union.
Our amendments would enable us to assess what those arguments amount to and how seriously we should take them. They would provide an opportunity properly to consult all the different groups involved and all the different sources of expertise, which would reveal that the facts are rather different. It would reveal first that the price of Britain’s EU membership is rather more modest than the anti-Europeans would have us believe. The Government contributed £7 billion to the EU in 2012, which is around 1%—
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this a debate about the merits of remaining part of the European Union, or not?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I have already explained this morning that I am listening carefully to all Members to ensure that they adhere strictly to the terms of the amendments they are proposing. The right hon. Member is in order in the remarks he is making.
Mr Lidington
The amendments in this group fall into three categories: the significant amendment about consultation spoken to by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), the amendments that seek to require the Government to avoid clashes between the referendum and religious holidays or other elections, and the important amendments of various kinds to do with the date in question.
First, I will deal with consultation. I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—his paean to the merits of the European Union and Britain’s membership of it. I find myself in agreement with some elements, such as the successes of the single market, enlargement and Franco-German reconciliation, although he may have underplayed some of the downsides of how the EU currently operates. However, the point is that the Bill does not seek to prescribe whether the United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union but to give the British people the final decision on that question, on which there are perfectly honourable, long-standing differences of view within all the main political parties in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that a massive consultation exercise, which the Government are leading, is already under way on the current balance of competences in the European Union, and it goes far wider than the organisations specified in the Opposition’s proposals. Moreover, the Opposition underplay the fact that in a real referendum campaign there will be the widest of debates involving all the organisations listed in new schedule 2 and many more.
Mr Lidington
The serious work on the reform of the European Union is already under way. I know that my hon. Friend will be delighted by the successful reform of the common fisheries policy, the ban on discarding, the push towards local regional management of fisheries, the cut in the EU budget, and the moves on deregulation that this Government have already achieved, even in coalition.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is an historic day. For the first time in nearly 40 years, a major political party of Government is united in its commitment to give the British people a choice as to whether they stay in the EU. That is the important part of this debate.
The Prime Minister and the Government have been criticised for not introducing a Government Bill. Let us be absolutely clear: there is only one party that is stopping this Bill being a Government Bill or having time, and that is the Liberal party. Let us be clear also that the Liberals gave a solemn promise at the last election to have an in/out referendum. They gave that promise only because they thought then that they would win it. They are now reneging on that promise, so this is down to them.
This is only a private Member’s Bill. Despite the fact that we all salute our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) for the way he has introduced it, its likely progress reminds me of the games of Cluedo I used to play as a boy. In about nine or 10 months’ time, the body of my hon. Friend with his Bill will be found dead in the morning room with daggers in his back, but nobody will claim responsibility for killing his Bill. It will not be the Rev. Yellow Cleggo or Comrade Scarlet, but my hon. Friend’s Bill will be dead. The responsibility for the British people being denied a referendum will not lie with us.
Sooner or later, the Liberal party and the Labour party will have to come clean with the British people and offer a referendum, as we are offering a referendum. When the Bill is finally talked out on some dark rainy night or morning, probably in the other place, and when we have ensured that all the other private Members’ Bills are slaughtered to make way for it, we will have to go back to the Government and say to our partners in coalition, “Give us a Government Bill.” If our partners refuse to give us that Bill, that will be an excellent platform on which to fight the next general election. We will remind the people again and again who killed the Bill by talking it out.
We must start negotiating now. There are so many fundamental issues—on our fisheries, on our farming and on our trade—that need to be worked out. I am confident that there will be a referendum. I fear that our partners in Europe will make very few concessions. I fear that the French will not be prepared to give us more freedom on agriculture, and I fear that the Spanish will not be prepared to give us more freedom on fishing. I fear that we will make very little progress, but we will try our best and the decision will then go to the British people.
Sir Edward Leigh
No, I am going to finish now.
When we get to that point, unless major concessions are made I, like many other Conservatives, will campaign for this country once more to be free. Why should this country not once again be in charge of its own destiny? Why should we not be part of a genuine free trade area? That is our vision of a free and prosperous nation, and that is what we will put to the British people.
Iraq War (10th Anniversary)
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because that is exactly the point I want to make. There should a mandatory vote of this House on issues as important as going to war. Moreover, and critically—this is the burden of what I am saying today—that vote must be a free vote based on conscience. We cannot allow ourselves to be taken along by the rhetoric of party leaders or to be bullied by party whipping and therefore, in a sense, to abrogate our responsibility to make our own decisions.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentioned the Conservative party. I was there and know what was going on in the party. The atmosphere was very relaxed. Although there was whipping, we were allowed to vote against it. Someone resigned from the Whips Office but immediately rejoined. I voted against it. We formed a judgment. I am afraid that most of my colleagues believed the Prime Minister and took the view that Iraq was a threat, but no pressure was put on Conservative MPs.
Caroline Lucas
Clearly I do not have the inside information that the hon. Gentleman has, but I have heard many a different story told elsewhere.
In conclusion, I said at the start of my speech that the justification for the debate is that Parliament must accept that it made a mistake in 2003 and set out how it will prevent such a mistake from happening again. I believe that it comes down to the acceptance of one principle: there must be a limit to party loyalty, and even of loyalty to the leader of a party. Loyalty is in some way an admirable quality. There are times when it is right to bite one’s tongue, go along with the majority, set aside one’s opinions and accept the judgment and experience of others. But there are also limits. Committing our country to war, asking our young men and women to fight and accepting that men, women and children will die in our name must be beyond the sway of party loyalty.
I would like to see the end of the royal prerogative on war and the establishment of a constitutional convention that votes on war are not subject to party whipping. I know that some Members might dismiss that suggestion, but it is a serious one and I urge hon. Members to consider it carefully. Of course informal whipping would have taken place anyway, but it would have been different. Taking away the formal obligation to vote according to the party line would have pushed more hon. Members to look at the evidence for themselves and vote accordingly. It would have given their constituents more power and leverage and put more responsibility on the shoulders of each Member. Scrutiny would not have been dulled by loyalty in the same way.
Like the issues of capital punishment and abortion, committing troops to war is a matter of conscience, and MPs should be, at least formally, free from the heavy hand of the Whips. This principle is relevant now as we grapple with the terrible situation that is unfolding in Syria. Members should demand not just a vote on whether we arm the rebels but a genuinely free vote. If Iraq teaches us one thing, it is that if MPs are to vote on grave matters of conflict, for that vote to be meaningful it must be the view of their own conscience, not their party’s line. As individual constituency MPs, many of us have constituents who have died in Iraq—who have lost relatives there. It is no answer to them to say that on a serious matter like this we did not challenge the case and satisfy ourselves that war was justified and unavoidable.
In future, when we are faced with a decision about whether to go to war, we simply cannot have a situation where the Government of the day tell the story and we take what they say on trust. MPs have to do the work themselves. In any future vote, we and our successors must establish, to our own satisfaction and on evidence that we have seen and heard ourselves, that the case for war has been made. Three lines on a Whips sheet are not enough.
Mr Baron
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. For many of us, the lesson from all this is that we must be wary of Government spin when we are addressing foreign policy issues, in particular; instead, we must focus on the evidence.
Bringing this up to speed, I suggest that in the case of Iran, for example, no intelligence service, whether American, British, Israeli or any other, has yet been able to publicly produce any hard evidence, as opposed to circumstantial evidence, that the Iranian leadership has decided to build a nuclear weapon or is taking that course. Nevertheless, that has not prevented our policy makers from painting a very different picture, and tensions are running unnecessarily high as a result.
The Iraq war is also a reminder that interventions often produce unintended consequences that can turn out to be counter-productive to our interests. A woefully inadequate post-war reconstruction ushered in a vicious civil war, as other Members have outlined. Studies estimate that many hundreds of thousands died in Iraq as a result of the invasion. In fact, Iraq became a honeypot for extremists worldwide. In a bitter irony, al-Qaeda only gained a foothold in Iraq after Saddam’s downfall and then proved difficult to eradicate. Minorities suffered as well. The Iraqi Christian communities, resident for centuries, have suffered immeasurably in the wake of the invasion.
Mr Baron
My hon. Friend and I are very like-minded on this. We have a very bad track record of considering the consequences of our actions in relation to minorities within these countries. Syria is a good example, in the case not only of the Christians but of the Alawites.
Today, Iraq looks into the abyss because of economic failure, sectarian violence and political turmoil and corruption. Prime Minister al-Maliki, having centralised power, is a tentative supporter, to say the least, of President Assad, and a new wave of sectarian unrest seems imminent. That is one example of how unintended consequences can come back and bite us when we do not think these things through carefully.
Furthermore, there is little doubt that the removal of Saddam Hussein fundamentally altered the regional balance of power. We tend to forget in this House that we supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s attack on Iran. At that time, there was an approximate balance of power in the region. In effect, by taking Iraq out of the equation we ourselves created a regional superpower in the shape of Iran, the consequences of which we are still living with today.
I also suggest to the House that the invasion ignored the lessons of history. Interventions have a tendency to support, reinforce or have an embedding effect on the existing regimes. Looking back at history, communism, for example, has survived longest in those countries where the west has intervened militarily, such as China, Vietnam, Cuba and Korea. Meanwhile, the neo-con dream of establishing a sort of liberal democracy in Iraq lies in tatters. Democracy is taking root in north Africa, in regions where the west has put in very little support, not in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the cost to the west, particularly to this country, has been very high in terms of lives and treasure.
Meanwhile, as we have heard, our intervention has radicalised elements of the Muslim world against us, not only in regions of the middle east, but on the streets of this country. Scandals such as Abu Ghraib reinforce this alienation. As has been mentioned, Dame Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, said that the invasion “increased the terrorist threat” and
“spurred some British Muslims to turn to terror.”
We are still living with the consequences of this radicalisation, as very sad recent news has highlighted.
One scratches around for positives from this period. Perhaps there are a few. If al-Qaeda was one of the reasons for the invasion, it is now abundantly clear that the Iraq war was a 19th-century colonial-style solution to a 21st-century terrorist threat. There is no point invading countries if we are chasing extremists and terrorists. Instead, our efforts against international terrorism must be much more nimble and nuanced. They must reflect the flexibility of the terrorist threat itself, focusing on intelligence and operations, supporting friendly Governments in their anti-terrorist endeavours and applying properly resourced special forces. Indeed, there are encouraging signs that we have learned lessons from that period. We must also better focus international aid on the poverty and grievances that al-Qaeda and others have all too readily fastened upon in the past.
Perhaps—I am coming to an end—there is a more general lesson to be learned. We failed at the time to carry the international community with us, and in doing so I would suggest that we lost the moral high ground. The view adopted by the US and the UK at the time was that might is right. This sets a dangerous precedent. The coming decades will see the emergence of at least regional superpowers—or even global superpowers—that might be eager to flex their muscles. Our invasion of Iraq will make condemnation of any future aggression by others less effective. The invasion showed international law to be no guarantee of sovereignty or, indeed, security. This in itself may have encouraged some countries to seek other guarantees.
If there is a positive, it is perhaps that this war may have served to lay to rest, once and for all, the view that the British electorate would instinctively support politicians advocating intervention or war. I would suggest that Blair was never trusted thereafter. As our Prime Minister considers possible responses to Syria, he would be wise to reflect on that. In conclusion, let us hope that these lessons have been learned, for the sake of future generations.
Mark Simmonds
If the hon. Lady will be patient, I will give the House an update on the Chilcot inquiry.
The decision to go to war has had long-lasting implications not only for Iraq, but for the region, the United Kingdom, our allies and international relations more broadly. Those implications are not necessarily yet clear, but they will be debated for many years to come. There were also more immediate implications. One hundred and seventy-nine British armed forces and Ministry of Defence personnel lost their lives in Iraq, as did a number of British civilians. We must also never forget the loss of life suffered by the Iraqi people. It is right that now, 10 years on from the start of the war, we remember all of them. We must also remember those who were wounded in the war and those who lost loved ones.
Mark Simmonds
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I say to him that the tragic loss of life, wherever it occurs, needs to be remembered. We must also bear in mind the huge disparities between the estimations of the number of Iraqi civilians who lost their lives. There needs to be better analysis of that. It must also be said that the vast majority of Iraqi civilians who lost their lives did so in terrorist incidents, not in military action.
Syria
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Absolutely; the right hon. Gentleman is right. The danger of the spread of the crisis regionally, into other countries in different ways, is one of the reasons we cannot just watch it develop. We have to work out the best constructive approach, difficult though these choices are, to try to turn this crisis in the right direction, rather than let it drift in the wrong direction. Any of the neighbouring countries will take action if their borders are infringed, of course. We have agreed to the stationing of Patriot missiles by NATO in Turkey, Lebanon has been very concerned about clashes on its border, and the Jordanian border is a tense place—and that is even before we consider the Golan Heights and the Iraqi border as well. The regional dimension is of serious and increasing concern, which is one of the reasons for today’s package of policy changes and announcements.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I strongly reject the neo-con policies and ideas emanating from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)? What could be gained by our sending arms into this cauldron? Have we forgotten the disastrous policy of arming the rebels in Afghanistan? Have we forgotten the appalling atrocities being committed now by jihadis against Christians in Syria? What is wrong with basing our policy on life and not death?
Relations with the Arab World
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
The highlight of my parliamentary career is undoubtedly the wonder goal that I scored for the House of Commons football team at the Stretford end at Old Trafford—the Manchester United theatre of dreams. The goal has passed into history, but less well known is the fact that the little inside forward who supplied the final pass, in a move involving the legends Pat Crerand and Sir Bobby Charlton, was the Minister whom I face in today’s debate.
The Minister and I have always had civilised—indeed, friendly—relations. I hope that they survive the next 30 minutes, for I am going to say some pretty harsh things about the Government’s policy. As Minister for the middle east, he will have to come in for his share of criticism, but nothing personal is intended, as I am sure he knows.
The Minister is highly qualified as a Minister of the Crown, but the least of his qualifications was the most important in his being made a Minister at the Foreign Office: he was previously a luminary—indeed, a leader—of the Conservative Friends of Israel. That is an indispensible condition in Britain; in the 25 years I have spent in the House, and I suspect for much longer than that, no one has been able to be the Minister for the middle east without being a member, preferably a leading one, of either the Labour or Conservative Friends of Israel. That is the first problem I want to deal with today.
The fact that one has to be a friend of Israel to be the Minister for the middle east speaks volumes about the absolute unwillingness on the part of the British state, the British Government and the British Parliament to face up to their responsibility to the Palestinian people. The entire tragedy of the Palestinian people was authored in this building, when our Foreign Minister, then Mr Balfour, promised on behalf of one people a second people the land that belonged to a third people, when we did not even own the land of Palestine even as an imperial possession.
That is the original sin of Britain—all the blood that has flowed under the bridge since that declaration was made, and the fact that we do not recognise our special responsibility to the Palestinian people. On the contrary, one has to be a friend of Israel to be the Minister for the middle east. That is central to our problems and our credibility in the middle east.
As a result of Mr Balfour’s declaration, the Palestinian people had their country wiped off the map. We hear a lot of talk in the middle east about people threatening to wipe other people’s countries off the map, but the only country that has been wiped off the map in the middle east is Palestine—go to your atlas, Mrs Brooke, and you will see. The Palestinian people were scattered to the four corners of the earth—stateless, paperless and passport-less, hunted from pillar to post and regularly subject to massacre and attack of one kind or another. All the responsibility for that originates here.
Instead of recognising that special responsibility, we do precisely the opposite. If someone is not a known and celebrated supporter of the country that supplanted Palestine and drove the Palestinians out of their country into the four corners of the earth, they will have no chance of becoming the Minister for the middle east.
I could adumbrate the perfidy at great length, but I do not have the time. I shall give only one example: Israel illegally holds hundreds of nuclear weapons, undeclared and subject to no treaty or inspection of any kind. It was a British Government who transferred the heavy water technology that made that illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons possible; it would have been impossible otherwise. We know that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons because the brave Jewish whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu told us, for which he was kidnapped in Leicester square and ended up serving 18 years in solitary confinement in an Israeli dungeon. When brought to court, his jaws were wired together, like Hannibal Lecter, in case he told us any more about that illegal mountain of weapons of mass destruction.
Israel has a mountain of weapons of mass destruction. Iran has no weapons of mass destruction. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has no nuclear weapons and that there is no evidence that it is trying to build them. Yet it is Iran that is subject to endless sanction and threat, while Israel has the red carpet endlessly rolled out before it.
Successive British Governments, both Labour and Conservative—the last one were even worse than this one; Mr Blair is now in almost permanent residence in occupied Jerusalem—have consistently backed Israeli crimes or failed to sanction them properly. Even when our own citizens’ passports were stolen by the Israeli intelligence services to commit murder in Dubai and we called in the Israeli ambassador and deported the Mossad representative from the embassy in London, the new Mossad representative to London flew here on the return flight and is ensconced still.
If this was a debate only about Palestine, I would have much more to say, but the proximate cause of my application for this debate is the ludicrous situation that occurred at Prime Minister’s Question Time a couple of weeks ago. The Minister will have come briefed, I am sure, for this point. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would adumbrate for the House the key differences—just the key ones—between the “hand-chopping, throat-cutting” violent, Islamist and extremist jihadists we were now going to Mali to kill, and the hand-chopping, throat-cutting, violent, Islamist, fanatic and extremist jihadists to whom we were giving money to help kill Christians and other religious minorities in Syria. There was a reply, but it was not an answer; it was a brief ad hominem attack—that if there was a brutal Arab dictator anywhere in the world left standing, he could no doubt count on my support.
As psychologists would say, that is just about as good an example of projection as it is possible to imagine. The Prime Minister projected on to me the sins—indeed, crimes—of which he himself is manifestly guilty.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One of the reasons why I voted against the Iraq war, like the hon. Gentleman, was that I was worried about the fate of Christians in Iraq. They have had a terrible fate since the invasion. Many of them went to Syria, and their lives have been made a misery now; they are the people in between. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is essential that we do not send, or countenance sending, indirectly or directly, any arms into Syria? That would make the situation far worse.
George Galloway
I agree wholeheartedly. The Christians in Iraq have effectively been wiped off the map of Iraq. Most of them are in Syria, where they live in daily terror for their churches and of their clergy and devotees being slaughtered by the hand-chopping and throat-cutting al-Qaeda elements to whom we are giving money.
However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong—we are already giving them weapons, and we are giving them money, which is the same as giving them weapons. If we give al-Qaeda money, what do we think they buy with that money? Are they buying Elastoplasts and other medical supplies? No, they are buying weapons with which to terrorise not just Christians, but Muslims and other ethnicities—Kurdish people, for example—on a daily basis. The Minister and the Foreign Office know that, and they must give an answer, if not to me, then to the British people.
What are the differences between the jihadists we are killing in Mali and the jihadists we are financing in Syria? I know why the Prime Minister did not answer my question; there can surely be no logical answer to it, for there are no differences. Al-Qaeda is al-Qaeda, and the al-Qaeda mindset is the al-Qaeda mindset wherever it is found.
I demand an answer to that question. The people in this country deserve an answer—after all, it is their money that is being given. I put a question to the Prime Minister:
“Has the Prime Minister read ‘Frankenstein’, and did he read it to the end?”—[Official Report, 30 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 906.]
Does he not know that Dr Frankenstein’s monster broke free and out of control, which is why it is called a monster?
As a case of projection, the Prime Minister’s response is pretty difficult to beat. In The Guardian, an American journalist by the name of Glenn Greenwald—the day after, if not the day after that—wrote:
“Cameron’s attack on George Galloway reflects the west’s self-delusions. In an act of supreme projection, the British PM accuses a critic of lending support ‘wherever there is a brutal…dictator’: the core policy of the US and UK”.
Who can doubt that?
The Prime Minister has travelled with his sales bag and a retinue of arms salesmen to one brutal Arab dictatorship after another. I do not know where he is today, but it will be a red letter day if he is not trying to sell weapons to a brutal Arab dictator. Saudi Arabia is our best friend in the middle east. We sell billions—tens of billions—of pounds of weaponry to the Saudi dictatorship, some of which is used in other countries. In 2009, the Saudi air force used UK-supplied Tornado fighter bombers in attacks in Yemen, which killed hundreds or possibly thousands of civilians.
The Saudi army is in occupation of its neighbour, Bahrain, where the democracy protesters are daily being gunned down with guns bought from us, by soldiers trained by us. We have a military training mission in Saudi Arabia, the darkest tyranny in the entire middle east. The most brutal dictatorship in the entire middle east is in occupation of its neighbour, killing people because they demand the right to vote.
Alistair Burt
In my answer, I was indicating that a friendship with Israel is not a requirement for the job, which is what he was indicating. I was pointing out that one of his colleagues had held the job without such a qualification. The reason why we did not support the vote, which was not for membership but to advance the cause of statehood for the Palestinian Authority, was that we had explained that what we believed was most in its interest was not a vote at the United Nations at that time. Our commitment to statehood for the Palestinian people in due course is very clear, however, and I reiterate it again today.
Without wishing to stay on that subject, I will briefly cover the others. On Iran’s nuclear programme, Iran is still acting in defiance of multiple International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions, including the most recent resolution adopted last September, and no fewer than six UN Security Council resolutions. The IAEA has expressed its serious concerns about the possible military dimension to Iran’s programme. Anyone who mistakes what is going on in Iran and believes that it is purely peaceful is missing the point. If it is purely peaceful, that is not difficult for Iran to demonstrate. We still hope that it will take the opportunity to do so this year. The IAEA has made reference to the possible military dimension of that programme.
On Syria, the hon. Gentleman again went too far. It is not true that the United Kingdom is supplying al-Qaeda with either money or weapons. I do not believe that to characterise what is happening in Syria as an attack on the Christian minority is accurate. There are jihadists involved. It is the wish of the United Kingdom and our partners to ensure that they are not supplied with weapons. That is why we are so determined to see the success of the Syrian national opposition coalition, so that it has legitimacy and an opportunity to represent the future of Syria in its political transition. We are more than well aware of the danger of jihadists becoming involved in what was originally a clear expression of reform and opinion against the Assad regime. That has turned into something different, because of the length of time that the situation has been unresolved, which is not through lack of effort by the United Kingdom with the United Nations. We are extremely concerned for the Christian minority and for others, which is why there must be an effective rule of law, but it must cover all.
Alistair Burt
I can give a categorical assurance that it is not the intention of the United Kingdom, in any efforts being made to support the Syrian people, that any money goes to al-Qaeda or any of its acolytes. It would be logically ridiculous of the United Kingdom to do that, which is why we give our support in the way that we do. No one can be absolutely certain about my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but it is absolutely clear that the United Kingdom has no interest in doing that. It is totally contrary to our interests and is not what we are doing. For him to say that that is clearly what we are doing is simply wrong.
I have to finish, because we are running out of time. It is a complex issue with a complex set of relationships. It is essential that we are able to deal with this issue in a way that examines the facts, and polemics sometimes get in the way. The hon. Member for Bradford West and I share a sense of justice for what must happen in the region. The policy objectives that we have set out are not always simple to achieve, but they are clear. I hope that we can continue to debate in a manner that allows the truth to be got to, even though opinion may vary.
Commission Work Programme 2013
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening. The document talks about solving external crises, but what about solving the internal crises? The European Commission has not shown much ability to do that. The problem is that it has inflicted supply-side measures—most of these are supply-side measures to try to deal with the economic problems—whereas the real difficulty is a serious lack of economic demand. That is the deficiency and macro-economic policy is the problem, as it is failing and is, in most cases, completely misguided. Item 1 in the document refers to an “Annual Growth Survey”—perhaps that ought to be re-titled the “Annual Contraction Survey”.
Item 6 makes the only reference in the whole list to the
“importance of a sound macroeconomic framework”.
I absolutely agree with the importance of that, but there is no sign of such a framework as yet. Indeed, we have the opposite: co-ordinated deflation driving the EU towards deeper recession. Thank goodness this country is somewhat to the side of that. We will of course lose if—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) is intervening from a sedentary position, but I cannot quite hear what he is saying. The euro is the primary problem; Greece, Italy, Spain and a number of other countries ought to be able to recreate their own currencies, to depreciate and to reflate behind that.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is a notable voice of reason on the Labour Benches on these issues. Does he think he will be able to persuade his colleagues to join us in arguing for a referendum on our relationship with the European Union—on whether we should stay in or not?
Kelvin Hopkins
I certainly think we should have a referendum, and I am actively involved in an organisation promoting the idea of one. More than that, we want to get some sensible economic policies adopted, both in Britain and across Europe. We also want to return to some of the common sense that emerged from Bretton Woods in 1944 and led the post-war world to such success, with full employment, rising living standards, growing equality and so on.
Items 9 and 10 refer to state aid. Lecturing those countries in desperate crisis about not indulging in state aids would be completely unacceptable. If they have to use state aids to regenerate their economies, they should be able to do so. Indeed, state aids in the UK should be decided by this Parliament and not by the European Commission. Some may be against state aids in principle and others may think them a very good idea, but we should decide on that, not the European Commission.
Item 13 refers to:
“Reforming the internal market for industrial products”.
That does indeed need dealing with. One of the great problems—the great problem, in a sense—in the European Union is the massive trade imbalances within it. Germany has a gigantic trade surplus with the other members of the EU, including with this country. If we went back to the principles of Bretton Woods, we would expect, in normal circumstances, that Germany would let its currency appreciate—the Americans were rather against that idea of John Maynard Keynes, but it was a sensible one—and that those with trade deficits should be able to depreciate their currencies. That is one of the measures used to get an economy working again.
I come now to some detailed points. No reference to railways is made in the section dealing with transport, although they are a major force for the future in the transport sector. Surprisingly, after 200 years or so, they have turned out to be the mode of transport for the future rather than the past. I have a great interest in railways, but no reference is made to them in this document.
On cigarette smuggling, we lose billions in government revenues every year because nobody pays taxes on imported cigarettes. They are brought in by the billion, I guess, and if we had proper taxes and duties paid on every cigarette smoked, we would gain billions in revenues—enough to pay many times over for free long-term care for all. Cigarette smuggling is a major problem, which we ought to be addressing as a nation rather than simply through the European Union.
Most of the measures in the list could be undertaken by member state Governments on an individual basis, as they felt they were appropriate. If we wanted to indulge in international agreements, we could do that through bilateral and multinational negotiation. The democratic decisions should be taken in this House, by this Parliament, and by member state Governments in general. We have shown that we can co-operate bilaterally and multilaterally and we do not need a European Commission to determine all these things. I am strongly in favour of democracy, which means democracy at a member state level.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is the voice of reason on these matters, but it was the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) that made me think about the forms and substance of power in this nation. When Her Majesty’s Government introduce the Queen’s Speech—their legislative programme—there is a great sense of funfair and fête. The House has trumpeters; the imperial state crown comes in its own carriage. Rather splendidly, Black Rod comes and the door is slammed in his face to show the independence of the House of Commons from the Executive.
When the European Union sets out its legislative programme, what do we get? When real power is being exercised, what do we see? A dusty, dry and bureaucratically written text is sent up to a Committee Room for a few people to consider and, if they feel like it, they grant an hour and a half—90 minutes—of debate on the Floor of this Chamber. There is no ability for witty speeches to be made by old and young Back Benchers alike or for jokes to be made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. We do not have three or four days of debate to clear maiden speeches out of the way or delve into the thin gruel that now comes from the Queen’s speech—we know where power really lies.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am very flattered by that promotion. Perhaps that is the one ornament I can provide to a debate on the European Union’s legislative programme, as it is more thoroughgoing and more powerful than the Queen’s Speech and becomes law more easily and with less scrutiny than anything contained in it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Both candidates in the presidential debates have, yes, been talking about the policy that I have been talking about in this House. I am sure that the two candidates for President of the United States are the experts on the mood in the United States more than any of us can possibly be here. Our approach, and that of the United States, is based on sanctions and negotiations. The United States is part of the E3 plus 3 nations that I have been talking about, and its sanctions are as strict as anyone’s, so it clearly believes in this approach.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is there not a democratic imbalance—I know that the Foreign Secretary will agree with this question and so give a good answer—in allowing every 16-year-old in Scotland to vote on whether to remain in the Union while ensuring that no one in this country under the age of 55 has ever had a chance to vote on whether we should stay in the European Union?
European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is ironic that we are in the closing minutes of a Friday sitting and we have so little time to discuss possibly the most momentous decision that we are going to have to take in the coming years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) on raising this issue. I hope he will forgive me for not discussing at length the merits or otherwise of our membership of the European Union—there simply is not time to do so. This is too complex and important an issue to be left to just a 20-minute debate.
I wish to make one point: whatever one’s views on the EU—whether one is strongly in favour, whether one is agnostic or whether, like my hon. Friend, one has severe doubts about it—surely everyone must now accept that on this issue there is a democratic deficit. Why is it that every 16-year-old in Scotland is going to be allowed to vote on whether or not Scotland should remain in the Union, but no Briton under the age of 55—that includes most people in this Chamber and most people watching this debate—has ever been given the chance to vote on whether we should remain in the European Union? That is a severe democratic deficit, and either this Government, in this Parliament, or a future Government will have to address it. The issue is becoming increasingly important and increasingly urgent.
The Government argue that the only way to resolve the crisis in the euro is for its members—the states that subscribe to it—to create full fiscal and monetary union. Let us be under no illusion: if that takes place—and our own Government are encouraging the process—it would have a dramatic effect on our relationship with the European Union, and on our whole trading and political position. I doubt that the process will be easy, but apparently the Government want it to take place. Whether one is fiercely in favour of our membership of the European Union or sceptical of it, nobody doubts that if full fiscal and monetary union were to take place, enormous pressures would be put on our Government, particularly in terms of financial regulation, and the oversight of the City of London and of our industries. I do not want to get involved in these arguments, but nobody denies that that would have a dramatic effect. I therefore believe that a referendum must take place. The Government must announce their decision to move towards a referendum.
What is going to be the nature of the referendum question? There is no doubt that the Government would like to have some sort of negotiation. I do not believe that the members of the European Union, or the fiscal and monetary union, will be able or willing, given that 27 nations are involved in this whole process, to allow a great return of powers. Ultimately the issue will boil down to a simple question: do you want to be part of the European Union—do you want to be a fully subscribing, enthusiastic member of the European Union who ultimately wants to join fiscal and monetary union; there may be many arguments in favour of that—or do you want to be part of a customs union?
A number of us had a meeting this week with an expert in this field, and I personally have come to the conclusion that loose talk of a free trade area simply will not do and that there is a future for this country as part of a customs union, which would be popular with the people and reassure opinion both in the City of London and in our industries. It is perfectly possible for us to regain our freedom—to regain the freedom to make our own laws—but to remain within a customs union. That is precisely what happens in other countries. Switzerland is a successful example.
This is a clear and simple issue—should we be in the European Union, or should we be part of a customs union?—and it could be put to the British people, and there would be a fair, honest and open debate, but I do not think the Government can simply sit on this issue for ever. There will be a fair amount of cynicism if the Government say some time in the next 18 months that it is their intention, perhaps after the next election, to hold a referendum without any clear indication of what the question will be and what will be negotiated. There is a huge amount of cynicism among the British people. They have been promised referendums in the past—they have had promises from the former Government; they have had them from this Government—so this is the most important issue of our times.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman refers to promises of referendums and says that Governments have not delivered on them. Does he acknowledge that one Government promised a referendum and gave a referendum? They were the Labour Government under Harold Wilson.
Mr Leigh
That was a very long time ago, and the right hon. Gentleman and I, who are perhaps in a similar age group, were lucky enough to be given that choice, but our colleagues sitting in the Chamber are all younger than we are and they have never had a chance. Should they not be given one? Yes, I pay tribute to Harold Wilson and the then Labour Government; they actually gave the British people a chance. All I ask is that, once again, the British people are allowed to decide, yes or no.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) on having the courage to introduce a commendably short Bill. It comprises just one piece of paper, although admittedly it does stretch to two sides, and its purpose is very simple, straightforward and understandable: to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and all related legislation. “Hear, hear” to that—not just from me but, I believe, from a majority of the constituents I have the privilege to represent from the borough of Kettering. It was in this very Chamber, almost exactly to the day, 40 years ago that the European Communities Act 1972 was passed. We are now in a very different world, a different UK and a different Europe, and the answers that seemed to be the solution to the difficulties of the 1970s are dragging this country back. If we are ever again to be the proud, confident and prosperous sovereign nation that we once were, the EU and our membership of it must go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was right to say that only people who are now at least 55 years of age had the privilege of taking part in the referendum that Harold Wilson introduced in 1975. I will not ask my hon. Friend which way he voted—I hope it was no—but, sadly, two thirds of the British people voted yes.
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Two thirds of the British nation were convinced by the argument that we were joining a common market, and that the way out of our economic travails in the early 1970s was free trade with our European partners. That was a persuasive argument but 40 years on, in 2012, we do not have what we voted for.
Colleagues in the House who are less than 55 years old, and all our constituents who are under 55, have never had the chance to take part in a referendum on Europe. The Common Market morphed into the European Economic Community, the European Community, and the European Union. The United States of Europe is probably just around the corner. I am completely confident that the British people do not want that.
I should tell the Minister for Europe that my constituents do not want the situation we are in. They do not believe in ever-closer union, and nor do I. They want to have their say on whether Britain should carry on with its membership of this 27-member club, not least because our membership fee is simply too high. Ten billion pounds a year would buy a lot of nurses, police officers, doctors and teachers—the economically productive people we could employ to improve our public services. We could reduce the burden of taxation. We could decide to do whatever we want with that £10 billion, but giving it to Europe and Brussels is not the correct way to spend taxpayers’ money from this country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton said, our fishing industry has basically been destroyed. Tens of thousands of fishermen used to be gainfully employed in all the proud coastal ports in the early 1970s. Where are they now? The business has gone to France, Spain and other countries that have been stealing our fish. Our once prosperous fishing grounds have been destroyed—the European Union’s handling of fishing grounds is a conservationist’s nightmare.
The biggest issue is immigration. Effectively, we no longer have the border controls we once had. Hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of EU citizens live freely in our country. They are just living by the rules and doing their best—who can blame them?—but most of my constituents will say that we simply cannot cope as a nation with the uncontrolled wave of immigration from the EU to our shores. We cannot cope with the numbers of people who have come to this country. With the economic collapse in countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain, hundreds of thousands more EU citizens could well be heading our way. Our economy is struggling out of a double-dip recession. How on earth will we provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of extra immigrants to our shores? I am not saying that we should not have immigrants who offer skills to our economy. Of course we should, but we should have bilateral agreements with those nations, not a border-free Europe in which we have no control over the number of people coming to our shores.
We also have the burden of regulation on struggling small businesses in this country thanks to the legislation factory in Brussels and the European Parliament in its two locations—a scandal that continues 40 years on. Why it needs a Parliament in the first place, let alone one that sits in two places, is beyond the comprehension of my constituents. Those institutions are turning out a stream of red tape and bureaucracy that stifles the economic growth of entrepreneurs in this country. Not only do we have to pay a horrendous membership fee of £10 billion a year, but we strangle economic growth from small enterprises with all the European legislation.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton on having the courage to introduce the Bill 40 years on from our accession to the European club. Let me say on behalf of my constituents that the very least the British people deserve is another say on Europe. If there were such a referendum, I for one would vote to leave. I am confident that the majority of my constituents would do likewise, because Britain’s best future lies with the rest of the world. That is how Britain came to be one of the most dominant powers of the world—by trading with other countries and spreading our message overseas. Limiting ourselves to a future tied to an increasingly sclerotic European economy condemns future generations in this country to a life without the prosperity we would otherwise enjoy.
Balance of Competences
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Like my hon. Friend, I remember the statements of President Giscard d’Estaing. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make extensive contributions to the review, and I look forward to them. Although I shall of course be shouting from the rooftops about what a Conservative Government will do, I shall not be doing so from the Dispatch Box now, given that I represent a coalition Government as Foreign Secretary. However, I look forward to doing the shouting at the appropriate time.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In view of the absurd statement this week by Mr Barroso that if we left the EU we would be reduced to the status of a Norway or a Switzerland, perhaps there should be a review of his competence. Incidentally, Norway and Switzerland have the second and fourth highest GDP per capita in the world. Life outside the EU can go on if countries enjoy full trading relations.
Mr Hague
I will not stray as widely from the statement as my hon. Friend has asked me to, but I urge him to submit his thoughts to the review. The review can give rise to policy conclusions, and he has given a strong hint of the conclusions that he might draw from it. I look forward to discussing that further in the future.
EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights
Edward Leigh Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
Baroness Ashton is an office holder, in accordance with the treaties, as both vice-president of the Commission and High Representative of the European Union. She can speak out on foreign policy issues in that capacity; what she cannot legitimately do is express a view purporting to be the commonly agreed policy of the European Union, and therefore on behalf of all 27 member states, unless the decision to adopt a common position has been taken by those member states.
In practice, what happens is that a common foreign and security policy position is adopted. An incident may then occur—another outrage in Syria, for example. Nobody quarrels with the idea that Baroness Ashton would comment on that, just as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would; the test is whether the statements are in line with the foreign policy position that has been unanimously agreed. In my experience, Baroness Ashton has observed very well the requirements of the treaty and the importance of unanimity for a commonly agreed position.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern among Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? We already have a perfectly good commissioner for human rights. Given that the Government’s rhetoric is all about avoiding competence creep by the EU and that we already have a perfectly good person doing a perfectly good job on behalf of nation states throughout Europe, we cannot understand why we are going along with the measure. The Minister has to reassure us further that in no way will it go against British national policy.
Mr Lidington
I have explained why the measure does not cut across British national policy, but I will come in greater detail to the relationship between the EU special representative and the Council of Europe.
I turn to the action plan. The European Scrutiny Committee noted that it is a comprehensive text and suggested that it constitutes a departure from the approach outlined in the previous joint communication. The High Representative has described human rights as
“a silver thread that runs through everything that we do in external relations.”
That is very much how the Government see human rights, too. In 2010, early in the Government’s life, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that
“values are part of our national DNA and will be woven deeply into the decision-making processes of our foreign policy at every stage.”
The action plan is comprehensive, because integrating a human rights perspective across all areas of the EU’s external action is the best way to ensure that the European Union maximises its influence on these issues.
We did not just agree to the action plan on the nod. We conducted a line-by-line assessment of the items, and we are content that what is proposed is in line with our policy objectives and does not pose a risk of competence creep. In addition, the Council has formally agreed that the action plan will fully respect the existing division of competencies. Although it is a comprehensive document, it both builds on the original joint communication and has been examined closely by the Government on precisely the question of competence that concerns my hon. Friend.