European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Indeed, although it is known by others as Black Wednesday. However it is described, it saved our economy then.

To come back to the unemployment that has been inflicted by treaties that are not meant to be changed—the single currency is regarded as irrevocable—the youth unemployment level in Spain has moved beyond 52%, as it has in Greece. Other countries are moving in the same direction and the quack remedy contained in these bail-out provisions does not have enough snake oil in the bottle to make it even half realistic.

There are those, such as the coalition Government, who claim that under the arcane procedures of section 4(4) of the European Union Act 2011, we should vote for this arrangement because it will solve the euro crisis and—miracle of miracles—will not affect us. That is but a harrowing indication of the pain of hopelessness in the face of proven experience. There have been at least 20 economic summits in the past 24 months and not one has come up with a rational solution. All they ever do is promise more and more money that they do not have, with the implicit assumption that if they do not have it they will print it, and break the rule of law—the law laid down through the European Union that we implement under the European Communities Act 1972. Although we are not members of the eurozone, it certainly affects us, and it certainly affects the other European countries.

The explanatory memorandum to the 2011 Act, which I and many other colleagues here voted against, put down amendments to and did everything in our power to prevent from passing, because it simply was not going to work, stated that

“an Article 48(6) decision does not apply to the UK merely”—

I repeat “merely”—

“because it may have consequences for individuals or organisations within the UK, such as UK businesses.”

Believe it or not, that is given as a reason why a referendum is not required—because it would “merely” have an effect on UK businesses. That is on the astonishing grounds that although it has consequences for the daily lives of our voters and their small and medium-sized businesses, it is a mere detail that under the 2011 Act the Government can swat away with reference to “the opinion of the Foreign Secretary”. And that opinion cannot be properly challenged. Anyone who knows anything about administrative law knows that where an Act of Parliament states, “In the opinion of”, it effectively bars challenge in judicial review. I would be extremely surprised, therefore, if it was possible to set up a judicial review—I noted that the Foreign Secretary said that none had been forthcoming. People might well assume that because those words are in the Bill—it has not been enacted yet—there is no point in seeking to upset it because it will only have effect when it becomes an Act of Parliament.

The legislation goes further. Clause 1(3) explicitly states that the decision taken by the European Council on 25 March 2011 does not warrant a referendum, on the spurious grounds that it is the view of the Foreign Secretary, whose opinion once given cannot be effectively challenged, irrespective of the consequences for voters and UK businesses. I certainly concede that we are not part of the eurozone or directly contributing to the bail-out, but what is happening is having a devastating impact on our growth.

As I said in reply to an intervention a few moments ago and as I clearly demonstrated in an article I wrote for The Daily Telegraph on 14 August, I simply do not subscribe to the view that changes in planning law and ever-more Keynesian attempts to boost public spending will do anything if we do not sort out the problems with the single market. We are trading a monumental deficit with the EU, and it is doing immense damage to our economy. Trading with the EU is now like trading with a bankrupt company. The Bill will allow the drug of continual bail-outs, so heavily criticised by the President of the Bundesbank, with the involvement of the ECB, to drag Europe into an ever-deeper maelstrom. To then pretend that it does not affect us, when 50% of our trade is with the EU, is economic and political nonsense on stilts, which is why I voted against the proposals in 2011. Since then the situation has got worse and worse.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I nearly always agree, for giving way. However, if Europe is determined to follow an economic policy for the eurozone that is completely idiotic, there is no referendum in this country that could stop it. So I do not see what a referendum on this subject would do.

[Mr Cash]

I am merely arguing that, given the consequences of the mistakes being made and the damage they are causing to our economy, in the light of the 50% trading, we need to renegotiate the economic governance of Europe. The consequences of our not doing so would take us into the same kind of deep black hole that it is already in. I did not say, at this juncture of my speech, that I thought that a referendum on this issue would necessarily produce all the answers to that question. I am committed to the idea of a referendum on more general terms—with respect to the EU as a whole—but I take my hon. Friend’s point on that particular issue. I insist, however, that the European project needs to be renegotiated into an association of nation states, not unlike the European Free Trade Association in the EU, based on the principle of consent. That issue should be the subject of a referendum on the broader landscape of the direction in which the EU is taking us.

The explanatory notes to the Bill state that the exemption condition is met if the Bill, as enacted, states that the decision is not within section 4 of the 2011 Act. In other words, under the Bill, everything is fine, whatever the consequences, if Parliament is foolish enough to state in the Bill that what is patently absurd can possibly benefit the voters of the UK. I have pressed the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe for about 18 months on the proposals in the Bill. It is impossible for me to understand why a referendum on the broader landscape of the EU is not provided for, and I cannot understand why the Prime Minister continually reaffirms his commitment to this failing, unreformed EU project. I know that many other Members agree with me.

By the same token, as the UK appeases the EU and Germany, so Germany pushes up the ante of a radical vision of deep fiscal and political union for the EU as a whole, while the ESM evolves into a full European monetary fund. That is why I argued in my article that we must refocus our trading relationship. The shadow Foreign Secretary referred to the single market as the answer to our questions, although I admit that he qualified that by saying that other things needed to be done, but, among those things, as I said in a pamphlet I wrote last year called, “It’s the EU, Stupid”, we have to refocus our trading relationship with the rest of the world, given the massive deficit that exists between us and the member states, half of which is with Germany itself. We have real options for trading with the Commonwealth and the Americas. Indeed, last year alone we ran a surplus of £36 billion with the Americas, yet the Bill re-endorses the nonsensical view of Europe adopted by the Euro-elite, and our acquiescence in the Bill is part of our failure.

Only recently, 41% of German voters indicated to YouGov that they wanted to return to the deutschmark, and similar indications are growing in other countries, but with them are also growing dangerous moves towards the far right, which I constantly warned would be the consequence of breaking the rule of law in Europe and of creating the kind of situation we now face. Europe is in the throes of a massive schizophrenia, and at stake is not only the stability of democracy in Europe but of the stability of our democracy. In Germany and Ireland, the ESM is being taken to the courts—to the German constitutional court at Karlsruhe and to the European Court of Justice in respect of Ireland. I have to say, however, that past references of this kind give us little confidence that the legal route will solve the problem.

The rule of law, on which this whole edifice is based, is constantly being broken, not only on the article 122-EFSM basis but in respect of the stability and growth pact, which was broken by Germany and France in 2003. This is a challenge not only to the interests of the UK and other member states but to the rule of law in Europe as a whole. I most strongly urge the Government not to proceed with this Bill, and as it proceeds I will strongly urge all Members of Parliament to vote against it.

The treaty should have been vetoed, just as the Prime Minister rightly vetoed the fiscal compact. The figure of €500 billion or so that is being proposed has simply been plucked out of the air. Most serious commentators believe that the current crisis in Spain, Italy, Greece and elsewhere would need at least €2 trillion, and probably much more, yet it is simply not there. Given the evidence of the continually evolving euro crisis in those countries, €500 billion-plus—some suggest that the figure could be €700 billion—is peanuts compared with the billions that are wasted and is inadequate to deal with the problem that this failed European economic governance has created. It is about time that we put our foot down in this Parliament, because the issue affects those whom we represent in their daily lives and we increasingly gain so little from our deficit with the single market. In pursuit of their failed ideology, the euro integrationists call for more and more Europe, however much the problem lurches from one disaster to another. That is not remorseless logic; it is a remorseless path to disaster.

It is said that under the European Union Act 2011 a referendum is not required unless it involves a new power or competence affecting the UK. What does it take to hold a referendum when a Bill actively encourages the European Union to implode, with dreadful consequences not only for Europe, but for the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Today we are agreeing to treaty change, yet we are getting nothing in return. In December, the Prime Minister, at an EU summit, told us that he was vetoing the EU treaty because, while this country supported the eurozone putting in place what it needed to in order to make the eurozone work, to the extent that that is conceivable, this country required something in return for our agreement to that EU treaty change: protection for our key national interest—the City of London. In particular, we wanted all future financial regulation to require unanimity, rather than a majority vote. We have not received that protection for the City of London, yet today we are agreeing to treaty change—without getting what we said we required if we were to support that treaty change.

It is not as if, through that agreement, we got out of using the European financial stabilisation mechanism for Ireland, to which we gave a bilateral loan, and for Portugal, to which we did not, and where the use of the EFSM was simply nodded through. It is the position of many in the House and, as far as I can discern, of Her Majesty’s Government that the use of article 122 and the setting up of the EFSM was not a proper and legal action under the treaties, yet it inflicted on this country a liability of €26.5 billion in respect of Portugal, to be shared through the EU budget, with our share being about 13%. That liability will still, under this arrangement, accrue to this country.

Article 122(2), the “natural disasters” clause, which was used to justify making the EU budget and this country liable for supporting member states that have the euro—a currency that we chose not to join—is still in the treaties. Unlike article 136, it is not amended through use of article 48(6) provisions. It could be used once more. I fear that the chance of it being used in future has been heightened by the way we have dealt with the issue. We agreed to its use at the summit in May 2010. I say “we”, but I cannot go much beyond that, because the Government refuse to release the details of what happened, within the Treasury and beyond, in the period when the coalition Government were being formed and there was a caretaker outgoing Labour Government.

The previous Chancellor has said that he decided that we could not stop use of the provision, and therefore had to agree to it. He states that the current Chancellor raised the radical prospect of us abstaining, but we none the less supported that use, which I believe we hold to be unlawful. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) referred to shoddy negotiation, but who was conducting that negotiation? In this case, as there was a transitional caretaker Government while a coalition Government was being formed, and a lack of clarity among the political participants on who said and did what when, it is perfectly proper that those very senior civil servants who were conducting the negotiations, preparing the Government line, and advising on whether such action was a lawful or proper use of the treaty, should be held to account, ideally through the Government releasing the relevant documents, which will show who was responsible, and whether the action was agreed by us or the previous Chancellor, or whether it was something that largely happened through officials and their interfacing with officials in other EU countries.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) is absolutely correct to draw attention to the worrying trend of officials in this country taking a position that is properly that of politicians, and of being infected by practices in some EU countries and in the EU institutions. We must put a stop to that. If officials trespass beyond the role that they have traditionally had in this country, they should not be surprised if they are criticised in this House and elsewhere in political discourse. If the Government were so strongly against what was agreed and how we became part of the EFSM, why did they promote the official who was at least a key cog in conducting those negotiations, and make him our permanent representative in Brussels, and why does the House not have a say in our foreign policy when it comes to what is perhaps the single most important diplomatic appointment, particularly in terms of the ramifications from the EU for our domestic law? Why was that appointment not put before a Committee of this Parliament for it to decide on?

Not only have we promoted the individual to whom I have referred, but we have not challenged the decision to set up the EFSM under article 122. My fear is that while that treaty article remains in force, it could be used again, and we have gained nothing in return for making this treaty change. We heard from the Prime Minister in December at the summit that we supported the eurozone taking the action that it needed to; in return we were not to have the major, full-scale renegotiation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth referred—we were simply to have one demand met: the City’s financial regulation should henceforth be decided on by unanimity, not majority. We did not get that, yet we have given way in a craven fashion, and are pushing this treaty change through the House.

Let us look at the decision, which is headed “European Council Decision of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136”. Paragraph (4) says:

“At its meeting of 16 and 17 December 2010, the European Council agreed that, as this mechanism is designed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole, Article 122(2) of the TFEU will no longer be needed for such purposes. The Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.”

Surely what the decision says about the EFSM applies equally to the European financial stability facility, which was set up, albeit on a temporary basis, with an ostensible capacity of €440 million. That was designed for the eurozone and fits all the criteria, yet the EFSM was still set up. I am afraid to say that after that date, we saw use of the EFSM nodded through, by Ministers responsible to the House, with regard to Portugal. In the case of Ireland and the €22.5 billion use of the EFSM, we chose to have a bilateral loan; the arguments there may have been somewhat different. In the case of Portugal, we made no bilateral loan. We do not have the same close economic ties as we do with Ireland, yet we allowed the EFSM to be used for €26.5 billion in the case of Portugal.

We put a stop to the use of the EFSM not because of the European Council decision, but because of the actions of this House, following a debate that I secured from the Backbench Business Committee on a “stop the bail-outs” motion after the Portuguese bail-out was nodded through. Following that, I am pleased to say, the Government found some rigour, stood up for this country, and made it absolutely clear to our European partners that there could be no further use of the EFSM, for example in respect of the further Greek bail-outs. Thankfully, we still have, within that mechanism, €11.5 billion that has not been used, perhaps €2 billion of which could accrue to this country. I thank and praise the Government for their work in that area, at least, and for listening to the House and to the debate that we had. But the problem that the Government have—I raised this with the Foreign Secretary and tried to prise an answer out of the shadow Foreign Secretary on it as well—is what does the decision do in respect of article 122 and the EFSM? It seems that the Government position is, “Oh, we’re getting this great deal in return for our agreeing to the setting up of the permanent stability mechanism. The other side of the coin is that we are released from further obligation under the EFSM and there is an agreement that the EFSM will be used no further.” The Foreign Secretary told us that the decision reflects that agreement in its recitals.

The problem is that if that is the case, under the terms of the European Union Act it is not lawful to approve this in the way that we are seeking to do through legislation. The Foreign Secretary issued his statement under section 5 of the European Union Act 2011—or it may have been the Minister for Europe who did so; the version that I have is unsigned—and it states:

“Section 4(4)(b) of the Act”—

that is, the European Union Act 2011—

“provides that where an Article 48(6) decision relates to the making of a provision that applies only to Member States other than the UK, it is deemed to fall outside section 4.”

That is accepted. The statement continues:

“The Treaty change provision contained in the Article 48(6) Decision does not apply . . . to the UK.”

So what? The legislation does not refer to the treaty change provision contained in the article 48(6) decision. It refers, as the previous sentence correctly states, to section 4(4)(b) of the Act and an article 48(6) decision. If one refers to that article 48(6) decision, it has a heading relating to the stability mechanism. The Foreign Secretary told us that the decision is reflected in its recitals, and I would be interested to hear whether the Government consider that a decision includes its recitals or not.

The burden of the Foreign Secretary’s speech was the great gain for this country and the fact that the decision that we are implementing tonight would somehow get us out of the EU-wide bail-out and prevent the EFSM from being used. If that is the case, it applies to this country.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am fascinated by my hon. Friend’s argument, which is put with great coherence but I think has one flaw—that is, if something affects the United Kingdom to the extent of zero pounds, it is essentially sophistry to say that it is affecting the United Kingdom. I think that is what my hon. Friend is saying.

[Mark Reckless]

My position and my analysis of the situation is that article 122(2) of the treaty has not been changed. There is nothing to stop another EFSM being set up. The Government’s position, as I understand it, is that the decision that we are ratifying tonight not only sets up the permanent stability mechanism, but releases this country from further potential liability under article 122. To the extent that that proposition is correct, it does affect this country, and what the Foreign Secretary states with reference to section 4 does not apply.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

To the extent that it affects this country, surely it is a negative effect—the UK will not in future be liable, rather than any liability or obligation being created for the United Kingdom. I accept that we are arguing about angels on a pin-head, but I do not think that on the understanding of the 2011 Act, that can be deemed as affecting the United Kingdom.

[Mark Reckless]

What the Foreign Secretary has chosen to do in making his statement under section 5 of the EU Act is to rely on section 4(4)(b). That is the basis on which he came to the House, and clause 1(3) states that the section 4 provisions mean that we do not need a referendum. However, the statement—officially put by the Foreign Secretary or the Minister for Europe—refers to section 4(4)(b) of the Act and an article 48(6) decision. That is then elided, with the next sentence continuing that the treaty change provision contains this article 48(6) decision. That seems to imply that while the article 48(6) decision would allow this not to apply to the UK, actually, if one looks at the 48(6) decision, according to the Government and according to the recital, it prevents article 122 from being used in the future as it has been in the past.

Therefore the reliance on section 4(4)(b) would not be valid, so either, as I say, we are getting nothing in return for agreeing to the treaty change, or article 122(2) will no longer be able to be used to make the UK liable for bail-outs, in which case the Government’s statement as to why we are not having a referendum and why section 4 does not apply is incorrect, and we are acting unlawfully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, although I have been thinking about déjà vu situations, not least because we have discussed this subject in some detail in the past, and then I started wondering where the holidays had gone—I am still wondering about that. However, it is an important debate and it is well worth giving the matter further consideration. The Government are absolutely right that we have had a motion but should now also have a belt and braces approach and a Bill to ensure that this is properly embedded in the parliamentary system and that we understand what is being done by passing this legislation.

I want to remind Members, as I have often done, about certain visits I make to meet businesses in my constituency. Many of them trade with the European Union, but they never really mention the problems because they are really quite pleased to have a free market and take it as read that that is a good thing. They are grateful for any improvements we can make to the single market, and I would like to see improvements such as the expansion of the single market to services and energy, for example. The firms I visit are good examples of why we should be concerned about the future of the euro and keen to ensure that the single market and our trade with the European Union continue unabated.

One of the firms is Delphi, which makes injector systems for diesel engines. It imports parts, assembles them and then exports them. They go from Europe to Britain and then back to Europe. It is that kind of relationship that is important and necessary in a world of increasingly complex supply chains and relationships between businesses. It is really important to recognise that that is the bread and butter of what the single market is all about. I heard earlier the worries about the single market and the need to think of it as unimportant, but I completely disagree. Not only is it very important, but it is our responsibility as supporters of the coalition Government to ensure that we press ahead with its expansion, deepening and enhancement.

The euro itself is also an important issue for us. We have to recognise that we are neighbours of 17 EU member states that are in the euro. An unmanaged collapse, or indeed any collapse, would be absolutely catastrophic. It is in our interests as a country to make sure that the euro thrives. We may not like the euro or want to join it, but it is in our interest to ensure that it does not break up. That is at the core of some of the issues raised today; I shall come to them in a minute.

Something else has cropped up in this debate—the good old referendum. I see why people want referendums and why they think that this Chamber should not make all the decisions, but also cast them out to the people. However, the people ask us to make decisions; that is what Parliament is for. I buy the argument that too many referendums are more likely than anything to reduce our influence, as decision makers and members of Governments, in this Chamber. We must be really careful about when we think we should have referendums and when we do not.

There is really no need at all for a referendum on what we are discussing tonight. The last Europe Act that we passed suggested that we should have referendums on the passage of power to the European Union, but which power will we pass to the European Union through this legislation? We will not pass any; actually, we are grabbing some power back.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

We are obviously giving the European Union the power to set up a fund. That must be a power, even if it is not worthy of a referendum.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that intervention, which goes to the heart of the question. If we are worrying about powers that concern us, the answer to my question is still no. That is the point: the answer is still no, because no powers are being transferred through this legislation from us to the European Union. If anyone can describe a power that is being transferred, I want to know about it, but unless they can the answer is that no powers are being transferred. That point is really important.

I shall go further. The real issue about the legislation is that it effectively removes qualified majority voting from the issues of what we were deciding before. That is why we need not worry; we are saying that there is now a power of veto on the process—so, ironically, there is a further strengthening of the British approach to dealing with the European Union. I question the need for regular referendums because that would reduce the influence of the House and I certainly say that there is no need for a referendum on this item, because at the end of the day there is no evidence of any transfer of power.

That is not the end of the matter. The issue that has been bubbling around this debate is that we do not like the euro so we have to pull out or do something to undermine it. My point is that we are not going to join the euro, but we want to make sure that our interests as a country are properly protected so that we can continue trading with the countries that are in the euro.

Let us face it—those countries are significant traders. As a whole, the European Union still effectively controls a quarter of the world’s gross domestic product. Seventeen members of the eurozone are part of that and they are the bigger part of the EU. In sheer figures, we are talking about a large portion of the world’s gross domestic product. That suggests that we have to be sensible about how the euro is treated. Sensible American policy makers agree; they want Britain to be part of the European Union, exercising appropriate influence in a way that promotes the trade activities that we see in Europe and beyond. That is not true of all Americans; one or two in Tampa during the Republican convention would raise eyebrows. However, American government, in the broadest sense, recognises that having Britain in the European Union is a good thing because it has a good influence on how the EU shapes up. It is important for us to recognise that as politicians, policy makers and administrators.

Poland was mentioned earlier, and I understand why. It is a very interesting country to think about because it is the only one that has not had a problem with growth ever since this crisis started. That is partly because it has always had a relatively sensible approach to borrowing money and deficit management. It has also recognised its close proximity to Germany, which is of course part of the eurozone. It is not surprising that the Polish Government are now wondering exactly what they are going to do about signalling their intentions on joining the euro—a decision that Donald Tusk needs to start to formulate as the months and years go by. Poland is not necessarily going to reject the option of joining the euro, and that is in complete contrast to the usual story about countries leaving the euro. We need to bear that in mind as we deliberate on the future of the euro as a whole.

We do not want to join the euro ourselves; we think that would be a mistake. We are not planning to make any decision that would lead us towards having to do so, but the British Government and the British industrial state need to think very carefully about how the euro situation unfolds. Our relationships with the big players are therefore very important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is, after aestivating for six weeks, to have returned to this House to discuss, of all things, the European Union. It puts a veritable spring in one’s step, even as we advance into autumn. It is a real pleasure to be able to support the Government on this occasion—a rare treat, one might say, when it comes to matters European. I will probably even find myself in the same Division Lobby as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).

The Government deserve praise to come on them from all sides for, first, the European Union Act 2011, which has led to today’s debate on this Bill. Without it, there would have been a two-hour debate in the House of Commons or the House of Lords and, bingo, a European treaty would have been changed. We would not have been arguing the finer points, as I have done with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), about whether the matter deserves a referendum. It would have gone through on a quiet Wednesday evening, on a deferred Division, with nobody here and nobody thinking or concerned about it. Thanks to Her Majesty’s Government, that has been put right. We have a proper process and a full-scale Bill, and I believe we will have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House as it is a constitutional Bill. It is all being done in a way that makes a parliamentarian’s heart glow with pride, if hearts glow with pride. It is a great achievement of the Government to have got us here.

The Government deserve a good deal of credit for what they have succeeded in negotiating. I want to be reasonably generous, but not excessively so. They have got us out of article 122, on the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which required us to put money into a European pot to bail out, so far, Portugal and Ireland. One may say that bailing out Portugal and Ireland is not too bad a thing to have done. Portugal is our oldest ally, and I am sure your mind often turns to the treaty of Windsor in 1386, Mr Deputy Speaker, which is why we have a fellow feeling with the Portuguese. Ireland is our close neighbour and friend and is important to us. It is worth noting that that €48 billion liability still remains, and the Foreign Secretary was careful to say that the Bill would exclude us from new liabilities. The old ones are still there, so we are signed up to our share of €48 billion of liabilities, which may come back to haunt us. However, we are exempted from further liabilities.

The European treaties say that there should be no bail-out from us, although my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) complained that often European treaties say one thing and the European councils do another, which is perfectly true. It is a regular state of affairs that the construct of the European Union is basically dishonest. A point that I shall make at every opportunity is that we know that the judges of the European Court of Justice are so corrupt that they judged in their own favour to give themselves a pay increase. We therefore know that the institutions of Europe are rotten, failed and corrupt. None the less, we are living with them, and they have decided that they will have a bail-out mechanism. It is better that we should be out of it. We should say to them, “This is your euro project. You go ahead, you pay for it. Thank you very much.” It should be outside our bailiwick, to the eurozone members’ charge, not the British and the other non-eurozone countries. The Government have achieved something in ensuring that, although I have questions about what the black letter of the law actually says.

We know full well that recitals are not the law, and that article 122 remains. We know that the regulation allowing €60 billion to be spent on propping up the euro remains intact, and it is conceivable, if unlikely, that that part of the European treaty could be used in future, because it is a qualified majority matter rather than a unanimity one. That has not been excluded from the treaty, but there is a strong political promise that it will not be used. Although I have my doubts about strong EU political promises—in the past they have not necessarily been adhered to—it is still an achievement to have got the bulk of the future cost away from Her Majesty’s Government and the British people. The Government deserve to be commended for that.

We have talked much in this debate about what the best solution for the eurozone is, and about whether we, as a country looking on, should help it prop up the euro or obstruct it in its desire to do so. That raises a fascinating moral question about the duty that one owes to one’s neighbour who is determined to follow a course of folly and error. If someone sees a man who is about to run under a bus, it is their moral duty to make some effort to grab him back. They may even risk their own safety in attempting that endeavour. It is an important requirement of neighbourliness and a duty of humanity. The question is, are the members of the eurozone throwing themselves under a bus, or are they committing some lesser folly which means that, because we know our intervention could not succeed, our duty to intervene and stop them does not exist? I think that the second category is the answer. If the Europeans had any sense, they would have an orderly dissolution of the euro.

Consider what the euro is doing to Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy: impoverishing their people, putting them out of jobs, making them unable to afford some of the basic needs of life. That is done for a political project driven by bureaucrats with no democratic accountability. They fire Governments that they do not like and they have put their despots into Greece and Italy. The panjandrums of Brussels are sent in to rule, overturning democracy as we have historically known it. They have done all that to prop up the euro, which strangles economic growth.

Although one does not want a constant series of devaluations and a Zimbabwean-style economic policy, we have found in the past that devaluation can be the answer to otherwise incessant deflation. We found that ourselves, not just in 1992, when we left the exchange rate mechanism but also—perhaps the more appropriate comparison—in 1931, when we came off the gold standard.

When we look back at countries leaving the gold standard in the 1930s, we see that the later the country left, the worse its economic performance. The greater the deflation, the longer countries pressed down on their peoples with falsely inflated currency values. Europe is doing exactly the same again. It learnt the wrong lesson from Weimar Germany. It was not the inflation, but the deflation that led to Hitler. The fear of inflation is so great that Europe would rather crush the people of Greece under a deflation than risk the printing of currency, which the Greeks could do for themselves if they reintroduced the drachma.

That is the crisis that we are allowing our European neighbours to take upon themselves, and the Government are doing nothing about it, but letting them—if the analogy is right—throw themselves under the bus.

I have some sympathy with the Government, and I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary is not here because he would approve of the quotation that I shall use from one of his most distinguished predecessors, George Canning, who said:

“But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,

Save me, oh, save me, from the candid friend.”

If Her Majesty’s Government were to take up the role of candid friend—it is fine for Back Benchers to do it, and “friend” may not be quite the right word for the European Union—what would happen? What response would we find from the courts of Europe? They would say, “The British never liked the euro in the first place. You set out with your bankers, whom we’re now going to regulate, to undermine it, and it is your fault that the euro is collapsing.” Not the fault of those who have spent too much in Greece and those who have worked too little in some other European countries, arguably including Greece, but that of the Anglo Saxons and their evil bankers. I therefore understand why the Government are not being as robust as those of us who do not bear the responsibilities of office find it very easy to be in such debates.

Here we are, back after the summer. The cricket season comes to an end—

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Shame!

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I agree with my hon. Friend—it is a great shame. The cricket season comes to an end but the euro crisis continues. It has gone on holiday for the summer, like most of the Eurocrats, and we find that Britain is allowing them to carry on with it because she has no choice. We are therefore right to let them go in that direction and not to obstruct them. Of course, we should use any future treaties to bring powers back to the United Kingdom, but on this occasion, we got something back. Honour was satisfied by what we got back, and, most importantly, Parliament and, therefore, the British people are being properly served by the proposal coming to us as a Bill rather than being pushed through as a mere piece of minutiae, in the same way as we may decide whether to charge for tours of Big Ben.