European Union Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

I am a courteous, friendly fellow, Mr Evans, so I accept interventions even if they are points of order on the dark side of the moon.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s courtesy in giving way. He is right that putting something into a Bill and stating that we reaffirm sovereignty may not in itself affect or change the law, but it sends a signal to the very people who effect our law, for example the UKRep or the Council of Ministers, and all those people who just go with the flow in Europe, instead of standing up for the needs of Britain, which are effectively written off. Saying it therefore sends a positive and powerful signal.

[Mr MacShane]

With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not being fair to our officials, who undertake the arduous task of negotiating the treaties or agreements that affect Britain. If he travelled widely on the continent as I do—and I am sure that he does, too—he would find that in capital after capital, people think that the EU is, if not a British plot, an Anglo-Saxon hymn to free trade. Again and again, in Berlin, Madrid and Paris, I have had to defend the EU and the European Court of Justice, because the vast majority of rulings in the ECJ uphold open and free trade, and slap down the protectionist instincts of many EU member states.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for almost inviting me back. Having worked in Brussels and in France for two years on issues to do with European law and how it affects our kingdom, I found that people went with the flow unless backbone was put into the UKRep’s office or into the Council of Ministers. We see it directly in fisheries policy, as fishermen in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are prohibited from doing the job that they want to do—fishing our seas—week in, week out, because of bizarre regulations that flow from Europe.

[Mr MacShane]

As the hon. Gentleman spent time in France, he may have read in the French papers reports of blockade after blockade of French ports by French fishermen, outraged that the British interpretation in Brussels of the common fisheries policies prevented them from doing what they wanted to do. This is a collective decision that we have taken, and I suggest that Government Members are honest: if they do not like the European Union, they will not alter it one little bit by putting new forms of words into clause 18.

Our representatives in Brussels and in all the Ministries that negotiate every aspect of our relationship with the EU will not be impressed by the proposals. If hon. Members do not like it, they should pull out—that is the honest position to take. There is no magic form of words that can get us out of our obligations under this or any other treaty. If they do not want to be in any of the treaty-based organisations, all of which are part of international law and which can, if necessary be prayed in aid by our judges, they should say so. There is a completely separate problem concerning the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to our courts. We are writing into our unwritten constitution judicial power that exists in other countries. The Germans have a constitutional court, and its rulings guide and control part of Germany’s relationship with the EU. We do not have such a court, but perhaps we should have. We all know full well the strength and power of the Supreme Court in the American constitution. We have never allowed that; we have wanted everything to happen here in Parliament and have not moved to a form of written constitution. We could put into one an obligation to have referendums on new treaties, as the Irish constitutional court has and the Danish constitution does. All those things are possible.

The Government could simply have said, “There will be a referendum on each new EU treaty—period.” That would have been very powerful and given the sovereign people the right to decide what should or should not happen. It would have severely limited the chances of this or any future Government negotiating changes to a treaty that we judged to be in our interests.

It is no accident that any reference to a referendum on enlargement is excluded from the Bill, because the Government want Turkey to join the EU—and so do I. However, nobody in the House can possibly imagine that the question of whether 85 million Muslim ladies and gentlemen from Anatolia should have free access into this country would not receive a resounding “no” from the British people in a referendum.

So we go back to the clause, again and again. Nothing in the amendment strengthens the Government’s hand or puts backbone into the UKRep spine—straight and sturdy though I am sure it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. However, during my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament I gained a rough idea of what sovereignty was and how it is viewed by different member states within the European Union. His amendment would have some strength if we had market-tested it on the academic experts who appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee. I truly believe that if we had said, “This is what clause 18 states. What do you think of that?” they would all have said what we have said about the clause, which has been repeated a number of times. If we had asked whether adding this sentence to the clause would protect us in any way, I am pretty sure they would have said, “No, not really. This is all a matter of interpretation for the lawyers. We won’t get anywhere like that.”

[Ian Paisley]

Is not the reason why people do not get excited about this sort of stuff—the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it—the way in which laws are changed in this country? He is right: it is not a bang theory. As someone who has worked in Europe and been a Member of the European Parliament, he will know that Europe changes laws in a very nuanced way. A European directive informs our officials what they should do and our officials make those changes, sometimes at the behest of our own courts. However, such changes happen as a result of a nuanced change in Europe. They are dumbing us down quite deliberately, so that this Parliament is no longer sovereign.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree, which is why I focused my attempts to amend the Bill on the parts of it where there are opportunities to get this place to debate matters more thoroughly. We should get the country more interested by having referendums on some of the big changes that happen in Europe. In the Lisbon treaty there is an awful clause—the passerelle clause—which has untold danger written across it.

There are many things that former Ministers for Europe did; I am talking not about the right hon. Member for Rotherham, but about a friend of mine, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) when he was Minister for Europe. The European charter of fundamental rights was meant to have no more relevance to British law than a copy of the “Beano,” but it is now enshrined in the Lisbon treaty. I am very wary of the process and how it works, which is why I am keen on tightening up many other matters in the Bill, and have tabled amendments to do that.

None of those issues are helped, or indeed hindered, by clause 18. The Government’s apparent intention is that the clause will combat any argument that parliamentary sovereignty is limited by EU treaties directly—in other words, that Parliament cannot act contrary to those treaties while they apply to the UK. A strict reading of clause 18 would not prevent someone from arguing that parliamentary sovereignty would be limited by the European Communities Act as applied by the courts. There are many different arguments on this matter, but I want to return to the simple fact that we can take from the expert witnesses’ testimony before the European Scrutiny Committee anything we like, to allow us to argue on any side of the issue. Sensibly, Professor Adam Tomkins submitted in written evidence to us that

“European Union law is far from being the only contemporary challenge to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty”.

That is a very salient point. Human rights law, and indeed common law itself, would also pose challenges, as would different types of law coming from different places through different courts. Those challenges will not be affected by what clause 18 states, and will not be changed or challenged by the amendment if it is passed. We will still be in the same position.

I am concerned because I have a strong belief that we will not be able to negotiate strongly with our European partners until we start banging our fists on the table, reminding them that we are the second largest net contributor to the European Union and using the vetoes that we have. We should do exactly what the French and the Spanish do in all budgetary and other negotiations, which is to play their hand as hard as they can for the best interests of their country. That is what I would like our Ministers to do, and what I would like to believe they are doing. I want to hear from our Ministers that we will not only talk and be good at the rhetoric, but that we will start instructing United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Union to do the right thing by our people. Again, none of that is affected by clause 18 or the amendment tabled to it.

I humbly suggest to my colleagues who may be excited by the clause that perhaps this is not the battle we should be fighting. There may be other areas where we can give the people we represent the referendum they want, and we should be angling for that. Perhaps there are ways in which we can tighten up the Bill through other amendments to other clauses. The timing of the implementation of the Bill means that it will apply to decisions made by the Government in the future. Perhaps we can do a much better job by tightening up the rest of the Bill, rather than getting excited about this clause.

Maybe at some point in this Parliament we can have a referendum on Europe, which is something on which I have not had the opportunity to express my view. I would love an “in or out” referendum; hon. Members can guess which way I would vote in that. Based on where we are now and what we have, it would certainly be “out”. I want the British people to have their say on our relationship with Europe and I also want them to be engaged in what is going on in their name in this place and in the negotiations. Other parts of the Bill, rather than this clause, are the place to try to bring that about.

Christians in Iraq

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point; I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take it back to his colleagues at the Department for International Development to see what can be done. I would be grateful to hear from him whether such conversations with his predecessor took place, and what the result of them was. It would be good to understand how the British Government intend to handle the future protection of all minorities, including that of Christians in Iraq.

We who sit in this Parliament have the immense privilege of having a voice in the mother of Parliaments. It is our duty to use our voices to speak for those who are suffering for their faith in Iraq.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with the British Council, which has done similar work in other conflict areas in promoting tolerance and trying to get a greater understanding of diversity, about what it can do in Iraq? Would he welcome that mechanism as a way in to Iraq to promote Christianity?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful for that intervention, which builds very helpfully on the point that was made earlier. I do not know the exact position of the British Council in Iraq. I raised that question with Canon Andrew White when I met him last week. I will leave the hon. Gentleman’s question on the table, as it were, and if the Minister can pick it up in his response, that would be helpful. The hon. Gentleman is right to pursue that line of argument and I am glad the Minister has heard what he had to say.

Whatever our views on the war in Iraq—there are people in this Chamber today from both sides of that debate—there is no question but that this country has an ongoing responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq and the Christian minority within it. They need to know that they are not alone. Even though our forces on the ground have stopped fighting, we must show that we have not forgotten them and that we have a continuing obligation. I am incredibly grateful to colleagues today for supporting this debate. We have made it clear to our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq that we stand with them, and that we will continue to ask these questions of our own Government and of the international community.

In its quest to improve human rights around the world, the United Nations has produced for Governments, in relation to the suffering of their own peoples, a new doctrine of responsibility to protect. What engagement have the British Government had with the United Nations and other international organisations to undertake the hard and difficult work of reconciliation and of instilling tolerance, to ensure that these ancient peoples who have lived together in peace for many centuries can do so again, and that Christians are not forced to flee Iraq and many other parts of the middle east? I look forward to the Minister’s reply and thank him for his time this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bellingham]

The UK supports the UN special rapporteur’s call for the UN to consider a commission of inquiry, and we are working to build international support for that and putting a lot of emphasis on it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to update the House on the kidnapping and unlawful detention of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit? What steps can the UK Government take to secure his release?

[Mr Hague]

Obviously, we are not able directly to secure his release, but that matter is one of the deeply aggravating factors that mean that Gaza remains such an immense international problem. We have called repeatedly for the release of Gilad Shalit and will continue to do so, and the international community will continue to work towards that end. If Hamas and other forces in Gaza were remotely interested in a political settlement and in coming to terms with Israel and the rest of the international community, they would wish to do that.

UK Policy on the Middle East

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your new position.

Like many colleagues on both sides of the House, I shall concentrate my remarks on the situation in Israel. I visited Israel and the west bank last year and met politicians from both sides. The best and most hopeful meetings were those with politicians with moderate views, who were willing to make compromises and could see the conflict from the perspective of the other side. In that vein, I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), who said that there is no contradiction between being a friend of Israel and a friend of the Palestinians, supporting a viable two-state solution.

During my visit, I was struck by the range and depth of those agreements, and I ask the Government how they will strengthen the voices of those moderates. Recent events filled me with great pessimism. The horrific incident on the Mavi Marmara sent a shock wave around the world, with widespread condemnation of the deaths of the nine civilians. The inquiry into the incident—I believe there should be an inquiry—must be judged by the international community as comprehensive, impartial and independent. Anything that falls short of those criteria will not be credible. I do not want to prejudge the conclusions of the inquiry, but questions about the conduct of soldiers aboard the ship must be complemented by searching questions about the planning of the military operation.

There must also be a wider understanding by the Israeli Government and the Israeli defence forces that they cannot use the justification of self-defence for any action that they choose to take. They must understand that there are severe doubts about the proportionality of their response in this case and others, and that the blockade of Gaza, in the wise words of my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, is self-defeating—a policy that has long been discredited and continues to push power into the hands of Hamas.

The people of Gaza are, in effect, faced with collective punishment, which in turn produces bitterness and resentment and pushes them further into the arms of Hamas, thereby frustrating the efforts of the more moderate voices that I mentioned. Allowing Hamas to control supplies of many of the goods that are smuggled illegally has strengthened its hand, not weakened it. The basic human rights of the people of Gaza have been denied for too long. The economy of Gaza is in ruins, with an unemployment rate of nearly 40%. Any hope of sustaining economic growth through exports is strangled at birth by the blockade. Not being able to export from Gaza has given more power and control to Hamas.

The restrictions and the poverty that they engender leave the people of Gaza without hope and drive them into the waiting arms of Hamas, whose only counsel is a path of confrontation and an endless cycle of violence and revenge. I welcome the work that the middle east envoy, Tony Blair, is doing to ensure that supplies will, we hope, go into Gaza, that the security concerns of the Israelis are respected and that weapons are not allowed into Gaza.

The proactive stance of the Obama Administration and their insistence that the Israeli Government should halt settlement construction is welcome. For too long the Bush Administration inflamed rather than helped the situation. Israel needs critical, not uncritical, friends. I urge the Government to do everything they can to strengthen the voices of moderation on both sides of this tragic conflict. Despite all that has happened, there are such voices, and our Government should put pressure on the Israeli Government, through the Quartet or bilaterally, to extend the freeze on settlement building beyond September.

The talks going on are, unfortunately, indirect talks. If the confidence-building measures of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South spoke are adopted, I hope they will lead to direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that equally the Government should apply pressure to Hamas to ensure that the force that it uses is not successful, that the repressive approach that it takes is counter-productive, and that the authoritative way in which it goes forward is self-defeating?

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I regret the fact that there have not been elections in Gaza, as there should have been, last year. They were also put off this year. The lack of democracy in Gaza reinforces the position of Hamas. We in the international community should do all we can to fight against the increase of its power.

Only if the indirect talks become direct talks will there be a chance of a lasting and viable two-state solution in the middle east. I look forward to all that the Government can do. We on the Opposition Benches will help them, where we agree with them, to bring that about.