European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
The answer is that we cannot go beyond the period for transitional controls laid down in the treaties. I will say a little more about arrangements for Croatia later. For Romania and Bulgaria, we have extended the transitional controls for the maximum period committed and they have to come to an end by the end of 2013.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I add a rider to the Minister’s answer? This is without a “notwithstanding” clause to the European Communities Act 1972, but this Parliament could of course do that if it wanted to.
Mr Lidington
This Parliament can of course pass any legislation it wishes to. In that sense, what my hon. Friend says is constitutionally correct, although I in no way want to mislead him into thinking that the Government intend to introduce such an amendment to the 1972 Act.
Mr Lidington
It is very welcome that the Irish protocol makes that assertion about tax sovereignty, which is in line with our own interpretation of the Lisbon treaty and previous European Union treaties. The Irish protocol also confirms that neither the charter of fundamental rights nor the Lisbon treaty in the area of freedom, security and justice affects the scope and applicability of the Irish constitution as regards the right to life, protection of the family and protection of rights in respect of education. It confirms that the Union’s action on the international stage, particularly under common security and defence policy arrangements, does not prejudice the security and defence policy of individual member states or the obligations of any individual member states. It also deals with other matters specific to Ireland, such as its long-standing position of military neutrality. It was formally agreed by Heads of State and Governments of the 27 member states in June 2009. It amounts to a guarantee in international law that the concerns raised in Ireland were unaffected by the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. Once all 27 countries have formally ratified the Irish protocol, it becomes binding in terms of the European Union as well as of international law.
The Government’s original intention had been that we might include with this legislation a comparable but differently worded protocol as regards the Czech Republic. That is still stalled in the Brussels decision-making process. The European Parliament has yet to produce an opinion on the Czech protocol, and until that has come out of the Brussels negotiations it would be premature for us to think about bringing forward legislation here in Parliament.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I wonder whether, while negotiating the Irish protocol and the Czech protocol, Her Majesty’s Government considered repatriating any powers to the United Kingdom which could have been part of this treaty negotiation.
Mr Lidington
As I said, the protocol was negotiated in 2009, so I fear that my hon. Friend’s challenge has to be for my predecessors in office who are now on the Opposition side of the House. Nothing would have been served in terms of the United Kingdom’s interest by our now saying that we would block ratification of the Irish protocol unless we obtained some concession of our own, because the thing at stake would not have been the ratification of the Lisbon treaty but the ratification of the Irish protocol, to which we have no objection and which is wanted by one of those countries with which we have an extremely close bilateral relationship.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I wanted my right hon. Friend to confirm, as I think he has, that it was open to the UK, as with any treaty negotiation, to use this as an opportunity to negotiate for our own interests, but the Government decided on this occasion that it was not worth doing so.
Mr Lidington
The point of principle that my hon. Friend makes is certainly right—that during a treaty negotiation it is open to any member state to withhold its consent unless it receives a concession that it is seeking. Obviously, during such a negotiation every member state has to calculate where its national interest lies and what kind of bargain it wants to achieve. However, this is now water under the bridge, as these events took place before the previous general election.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I say what a particular pleasure it is to see that the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, has tabled a motion for 7 pm so that this debate may continue “until any hour”? It is always reassuring when European debates are not limited by an unnecessary constraint on time, although I note that having done that, the Prime Minister has left the country. Perhaps he does not want to hear hon. Members’ full ruminations on this subject.
I begin by commiserating with Croatia, which has decided that it wishes to join the European Union—an organisation that others may be looking to get out of if they possibly can. One always has a certain sympathy with nations that gained their freedom not so long ago and now wish to hand it over to another body and organisation.
I refer hon. Members to the report by the European Scrutiny Committee, which the Minister touched on. It concerns me that, once again, the European Union is not learning from experience. It always thinks that countries may be ready for something, yet it comes as a nasty shock when those self-same countries are not ready. We saw that with monetary union, which the EU pushed on member states that were not conceivably ready to join. It said that there was an efficient system afterwards to ensure that countries would be brought into line, and that everything would be made to work ex post facto, but that is precisely what did not happen. We see the same with Romania and Bulgaria, which are constantly found to be in breach of their commitments. The European Scrutiny Committee has highlighted various issues, some of which go beyond the Minister’s remarks, while others reiterate his points about the difficulties of Croatia’s membership of the EU.
I would highlight Croatia’s 2,000 mile border. My concern is not Croatia’s 4 million population, but that lots of people can get through a border, as we have seen in Greece. Unless a country has a rigorous system of citizenship in the first place, people can establish rights to be members of it, or pretend to have done so. Once they are inside the EU, they can come waltzing into England without so much as a by-your-leave, as they can into Scotland—I am pleased to see so many of our friends from the Scottish nationalist party in the Chamber for the debate.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is the Scottish National party.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Not nationalist? I do apologise.
If a country has weak borders, it undermines the free movement of people within Europe.
Kelvin Hopkins
There has been discussion in recent years of the possibility of passport controls at internal borders. If there were, and if everyone had to carry a passport if they were not a resident of a country, we would solve some of that problem.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am very reluctant to see controls on the free movement of people within the UK. We ought to have secure borders, and the extension of the EU has weakened our border controls and allowed member states to give their citizenship away. One recent case is Hungary, which sells citizenship. If Hungarian citizenship is sold, UK citizenship is also effectively sold, because people will have the free right to move and settle here. In due course of time, when the provisional practices that apply to countries such as Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania end, their citizens will also be able to work here.
That ought to concern us. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has said that we need to look at the whole question of the free movement of people, because of certain extraordinary anomalies within it, which were highlighted on “The World Tonight” on Radio 4 last night. The programme explained the difficulties that UK citizens have in bringing in a dependant who is not an EU national. However, a member of another EU nation state who is resident in the UK can bring in a dependant who is not an EU national.
One could argue that the structures of the free movement of people in the EU are in fact racist, because they deny the right of people from Commonwealth countries, who are often non-white, and who have very close associations with the UK, to come here, when people within the EU, with whom we sometimes have very little connection, can come here. We must therefore look at the free movement of people of the EU. It used to be a rich man’s club, but it is a European man’s, and indeed woman’s, club that excludes members of the Commonwealth who are not also EU members, who are often not white. This is a serious question for us to think about. Is the basis of the free movement of people within the EU fundamentally a racist principle? We need to consider whether seven years will be enough for Croatia, and whether we should amend British law to restore controls over immigration that are fair to people across the world, and that do not discriminate favourably towards Europeans but unfavourably towards others.
Croatia might not be ready to join and might fail to meet the requirements of the EU. On tackling corruption, the Commission is concerned that only three people have been found guilty of abuse of office. The Commission states:
“The implementation of the Law on the Police should be ensured, in particular to depoliticise the police and increase professionalism”.
The fact that that problem has not been tackled is a difficulty. What if we cannot have confidence in the police in a country that is about to join? Even if it is not part of Schengen, it will be part of the European arrest warrant arrangements, but it does not have a de-politicised police force or one that has been made sufficiently professional. Are we really, after the middle of next year, going to allow British subjects to be arrested on the say-so of a Croatian court, when Croatia has a police force in which even the European Commission does not have confidence?
The European Scrutiny Committee report shows that what is sought from Bulgaria and Romania is not happening. The same applies to some extent to Croatia. Is there an autonomously functioning and stable judiciary? That, too, relates to justice and home affairs agreements. We allow the judiciary of foreign countries to have an effect on subjects of Her Majesty going about their business in the UK, but countries that are joining the EU do not meet basic standards. The report states that we have not seen
“concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime”.
We are therefore concerned that the state is corrupt at the highest level, yet we are allowing it to join before the problems are sorted out. That is once again the triumph of hope over experience—can letting them in and hoping to sort it out possibly be the right way forward when we have so many commitments through joint recognition of standards in fellow member states? We are also concerned that Croatia does not have
“a legal system capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way.”
We must be more careful and prudent. Widening is a good thing—it is splendid to have a wider rather than a deeper EU—and it is good thing that newly emerged democracies have been able to come into the EU fold. However, when we have so many commitments to the EU that can be enforced upon us by foreign countries, is it right that we should let them in before the requirements have been met or without installing protections for ourselves by amending the treaties? I therefore have concerns that the opportunity to negotiate repatriations of power to the UK that could protect us from some of the inadequacies of the Croatian state before it joins the EU has not been taken—whether by the previous Government or this one is beside the point.
In that context, it is worth looking at what Ireland has done. As we know, Ireland was bullied by the EU into voting twice. That was a classic example of the EU believing in democracy for others but not for itself. It is a question of it saying, “Vote as often as you like until you give the right answer, and then you don’t need to vote again.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a problem with how the rule of law applies across the EU. How can the EU have a rule of law when it allows in countries that do not meet the basic tests of being free of corruption and of having a properly functioning judiciary? They can then apply their law to our citizens. Surely that cannot be just or in line with the rule of law.
On the concessions Ireland received, I give my wholehearted support for what the Prime Minister said in 2009, when he thought it was a good idea to do what the Irish did and to get concessions for the UK. In his brilliant speech, he said he wanted
“the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services, for example the aspects of the Working Time Directive which are causing real problems in the NHS and the Fire Service”.
I agree with him, but we should have brought those powers back in the negotiation on the treaty we are debating. He also said he wanted a “complete opt-out” from the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, and was once again absolutely right. The Minister for Europe ought to go back to our European friends and say, “This is what the Prime Minister wanted in the treaty, so perhaps we could have it.” The Prime Minister also said he wanted to limit
“the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and”
ensure
“that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain”.
The Prime Minister showed brilliant prescience. He knew what this country needed and what it ought to get back. The Bill could have brought it back, because we could have said to our European partners that we will not agree to Croatia’s entry or Ireland’s protocols if we are not given—[Interruption.] You are looking as if you were doubtful that my remarks would be relevant to the subject matter at hand, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I knew he would come into order. It was only a matter of time.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. How lucky it is that there is unlimited time for this particular debate.
The Irish have shown with their protocol that it can be done. In fact, this is an exciting opportunity for this country. The Bill will be taken, and will be amendable by, a Committee of the whole House, and there has been much rejoicing at the conversion of the Labour party to deep, true-blooded, thorough-going Euroscepticism.
Emma Reynolds
I assure the hon. Gentleman that Labour remains a pro-European party. On Croatian accession and the Irish protocol, does he seriously think that his Government could withhold support for the Bill and negotiate and repatriate all the things that he has just mentioned? I do not think that he believes that to be a realistic prospect, because he is far too sensible.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is as flattering and charming as always, but it is good enough for the Irish, who got some serious concessions. The concession on taxation is a very important one. It establishes that taxation is not to be set at the European level. In fact, it is clever of the Irish to have got it, because Lisbon is bringing in an awful lot of things by the back door and the Irish have managed to close that back door, or the stable door as one may like to call it.
Mr MacNeil
Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Irish have been more adept and a bit more clever than the UK in playing their hand in Europe?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I know it is implausible that the Irish could have been more adept than people living in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, but they did indeed manage to get something by virtue of having a proper democracy that required a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon, to which the Irish people had the sense in the first instance to say no, but then they were bullied by Europe into saying yes at a later stage, with some guarantees. If we had had a referendum, I think that the British Government might have been able to get some pretty serious guarantees.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked whether I really believe that the Government could have negotiated concessions for the United Kingdom. Yes, I absolutely do, because the European Union wants the Lisbon treaty to function fully; the Lisbon treaty only functions fully with the Irish agreement, because it had to be agreed by unanimity; the Irish agreement was conditional on the protocols given in the Croatian accession treaty; and therefore it follows that if the United Kingdom had insisted on concessions to us that would have let the Lisbon treaty carry on for everybody else, we would have been in a very strong negotiating position to achieve them. That is probably still the case.
I want to return to the general rejoicing at the socialists having become a new Eurosceptic party, as, of course, they were, rather less successfully, under Michael Foot not so many years ago. As a Eurosceptic party, they voted last week to stop spending more money in the European Union. It occurs to me that the Bill could be amended to say that it will come into effect only at the point at which our full rebate—which was given away by our Labour friends when they were last in government—is restored. Now that the Labour party is so committed to cutting expenditure in the European Union, it would almost certainly be willing to support such an amendment, so we can use this Bill on the Floor of the House to achieve the reduction in spending that so many Members of this House showed that they wanted last week. Indeed, I think it is the united will of the Conservative party that less money should go to Europe.
Graham Stringer
Is there not a deeper point to the Bill? Although expansion has genuine economic and political benefits, the United Kingdom’s influence is being diminished. Under qualified majority voting we will have less influence. Another country will also be a recipient of funds, as opposed to a donor, so our position is weakened.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He makes a crucial point, which we will discuss further in our second debate, in which we will see that eurozone votes, as a qualified majority, are able to outvote everybody else, which seriously diminishes the UK’s voting power, as does this Bill. By adding another member state, we will go from 17 to 18 recipient, mendicant countries and 10 that pay in. It also means that one more part of the qualified majority will be against us and for more spending and for the ratchet of Europe.
We need to be very cautious about what we do when we do not get anything in return—that is my main point. I am quite happy to welcome other nations to the European Union, if they really want to join. I understand that the Scottish nationalists might want to rejoin. I thought that the great argument for Scottish nationalism was that they would be free from Europe as well, but that is not the way they are going. We are not getting anything in return.
Mr MacNeil
To clarify for the hon. Gentleman, the point of the 2014 referendum will be to transfer political power pertaining to Scotland from Westminster to Edinburgh.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that he does not need to respond to that intervention, because he need only address the Bill?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to say, “From Westminster to Brussels,” but never mind—that will be debated at a later point.
The crux of the matter is that this was an opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that we improved matters with regard to the free movement of people, extended the time for which that could be implemented, and asked the right questions about whether Croatia is ready to join and then delayed that until the right time. We are taking a risk with home affairs and justice by allowing this to go through and by recognising the Croatian justice system when it may not yet be fit. We are not taking the opportunity that the Irish have taken. We should do what the Prime Minister said in 2009 and use every single treaty negotiation to reinforce the repatriation of powers and to ensure that the United Kingdom can govern herself.
This Bill is a great opportunity, because it is required to be passed unanimously by all member states of the European Union. We have an opportunity to tag on a budget-related concession to our ratification of the Bill, to ensure that article 312(4) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union does not automatically kick in to force a rise in EU expenditure when the British people and many others want it to be cut. Let us give this Bill a Second Reading, but let us amend it in the Committee of the whole House to put British interests first.
Antarctic Bill
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cash
For a few moments before that tragic statement, I was commending my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for bringing in the Bill, for the manner in which he did so, and for the importance of the legislation. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). As a scientist—if not the only one in the House—and as the Member for Cambridge he has put up a strong case, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, for the continuation of the organisation that has carried forward the remarkable historical, geological and scientific achievements in Antarctica. It provides a framework for present and future scientific exploration and reflects the past.
I was fascinated to read an article—I think it was in yesterday’s Evening Standard—by the famous art critic, Brian Sewell, whom I find extremely engaging. He is one of our foremost art critics, and he described the photographs that were taken on the Antarctic expeditions as being of such immense quality that he ranked them alongside some of the greatest works of art. That is an astonishing statement when we consider that he was talking about photographs, rather than sketches, water colours or other paintings.
Those photographs are mainly held in the archives in Cambridge. I have had reason to look into those archives, and anything that can be done to maintain that institution is vital. I was also delighted to hear from other speakers that steps had been taken, notwithstanding the urgings of the hon. Member for Cambridge, to ensure that the collection remains intact and that the organisation should actively continue to perform the work that I am about to describe, which originated in the expedition of 1901-04.
The Bill has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud in sufficient detail, but I would like to elaborate on one or two points. What is being proposed strongly reflects the heritage of the United Kingdom, as well as its endeavours, adventures and sense of commitment and exploration, and this Second Reading debate is an appropriate occasion on which to call attention to the heroism not only of Captain Scott, who so tragically died in the second expedition, but of the accumulated courage and endeavours of those who went on the first and second expeditions. It must have been astonishing, in 1901, for those pathfinders to go into those extremely hazardous conditions. They had a sense of adventure that the likes of Ranulph Fiennes perpetuate today. We owe those people an enormous debt.
Many people will have seen the film “Scott of the Antarctic”. Others might also have been to the exhibition about the Antarctic that was held in the annexe of Buckingham Palace. I am not sure whether it is still on, but if it is, I strongly recommend that people go and see it, because the photographs that I was just describing are displayed in it. The book that accompanied the exhibition is also fascinating; I think that His Royal Highness Prince Philip wrote the foreword to it. It is important to remember that those who went on the expeditions were not just a few people who wandered off to have an interesting time. We should always recall their sheer courage and the intrepid nature of their characters, as well as the hardship that they endured.
I want to refer to certain aspects of the Bill, before I go on to talk about the history of the expeditions. Clause 15 deals with historic sites and monuments. Under section 10 of the Antarctic Act 1994, it is an offence to
“damage, destroy or remove any part of a site or monument”.
However, it was thought that that prohibition could occasionally impede the effective conservation management of the sites. It has therefore been decided—rightly, I think—to enable the Secretary of State to grant a new form of permit in respect of the conservation of, or repairs to, designated historic sites and monuments.
Clause 16 is an important measure that deals with the conservation of animals and plants. I shall mention that again in a moment when I make reference to what went on between 1901 and 1904. I have with me the two volumes written by Captain Scott entitled “The Voyage of the Discovery”, and it would be appropriate to put on record one or two of the matters to which he refers. These books are quite difficult to get hold of, and this is a good opportunity for me to give the House an indication of what was going on at the time.
The 1994 Act contains a provision that makes it an offence to
“remove or damage such quantities of any native plant that its local distribution or abundance will be significantly affected…except in accordance with a permit…or under the written authorisation of another Contracting Party”
to the protocol. The provision also extends to native invertebrates, which is an important and necessary measure. Because of the vast wilderness of the Antarctic landscape, the plants and native invertebrates are essential to the preservation of the integrity of the environment, and it is important that nothing is done to damage them. It is also vital to maintain their presence there.
The 1994 Act also makes it an offence to introduce a non-indigenous species. That is to preserve the integrity of the existing continent, but there are provisions allowing for plants and animals to be kept on board vessels visiting Antarctica, provided that they remain on board. Of course, if we go back to the original expeditions, it would have created a few problems if it had not been possible for the explorers to take their dogs with them to pull the sledges. Amundsen’s expedition eventually won the battle by virtue of having his team of dogs with him. The difficulties that arose for Scott’s expedition meant that they were left having to pull the sledges by hand—quite a remarkable feat. The intensity of the cold and the distances were such that it was an amazing achievement that they managed to do what they did.
Other provisions on microscopic organisms are designed to ensure that we can develop certain native plants, while other provisions prohibit the introduction of non-sterile soil into any part of Antarctica. These provisions may seem unusual, but we have heard in the last few months about the destruction of the ash tree in this country, resulting from spores coming here from other parts of the continent— from Denmark in particular. In dealing with an area such as the Antarctic, it is essential to maintain the integrity of local species and not to have them contaminated. In practice I believe these provisions will turn out to be immensely important as the Bill is brought into effect and then into full operation.
I thought today might be an appropriate moment for this debate, given that some of us feel that the people participating in these expeditions were so intrepid and fearless. This is perhaps also reflected when we think of other great explorers, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles). As I understand it, he and his mother have been to the Arctic, and I believe from a speech he recently made in my constituency that he is going to the Antarctic, too, following in the footsteps of Robert Scott. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not here—never mind, he probably has an important constituency engagement—but his journeys are fascinating. He used to be in the Army; he has rowed across the Atlantic with his mother; and he is now proposing to go to the Antarctic as well. He will be following in the footsteps of the other explorers that I am about to mention.
It is important to put on the record those whom Robert Scott acknowledged in his own book, “The Voyage of the Discovery”. He pays tribute to Sir Clements Markham, whom he describes as the father of the expedition and its most constant friend. One has to remember that, with Scott having died in 1912, no successor book was written about the second expedition. To feel the character and sheer quality of these expeditions, we can read the “The Voyage of the Discovery”, published in two volumes, to find out how Scott and his team of fellow explorers felt during the first expedition. I strongly recommend that anyone interested should take the opportunity to read it.
I have taken a particular interest in another aspect of this topic, not least because my wife’s family included a certain Thomas Kennar, who went with Scott to Antarctica as the quartermaster of the first expedition. Another young man, a petty officer, was pretty much seconded as the geologist to the national Antarctic expedition. I pay tribute to him as well. He was called Mr Ferrar, and in the book’s appendix 1, he set out a summary of the geological observations made during the cruise of the SS Discovery between 1901 and 1904. There is the now-famous Ferrar glacier, and I am glad to say that Mr Thomas Kennar was given the opportunity to use his name, too, so there is a valley in the Antarctic known as the Kennar valley. It could be said that we are pretty proud of that.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
In view of this habit of naming places after great men who have led fierce expeditions, I wonder whether Brussels should be renamed Cashland.
Mr Cash
It is very kind of my hon. Friend to suggest that, but if any such thing were ever done, I should prefer it to be done after we had defeated those in Brussels. Let us get that done first, and then we can think about some method of commemorating the event, if and when it occurs.
I thought that it would be helpful to give some idea of the sort of activities in which those on the expedition were engaged. There was, in fact, an important expedition within the expedition, which took place in October 1903. Scott writes: “Because the region in which much of our work lay was very beautiful and interesting, I propose to take the reader”—and, on this occasion, the House—“into the details of one more sledging excursion. The party with which I left the ship on October 12th 1903 numbered 12 members in all”, and he says who they were.
Scott led the advance party himself; the second party was led by the geologist Mr Ferrar, with whom went two men, Kennar and Weller. He says: “The original scheme was that the whole party should journey together to the summit of Victorialand, and it was said that there should be an absence of nine weeks calculated for the advance party.” To cut a long story short—[Laughter.] It is quite a long story, but I make no apology for that.
I do want to make one thing clear. Astonishingly, although they were completely lame and exhausted, those who had led the second party were determined to follow the first group. Scott writes: “Once or twice they halted to brew tea to keep themselves going, but not one of them had suggested the halt should be extended.” That was in absolutely incredible conditions. He goes on: “In the hard struggle of the last few hours, some of the men had kept things going by occasionally indulging in some dry remark which caused everyone to laugh. Kennar’s attitude had been one of grieved astonishment. Presumably referring to me, he kept repeating ‘If he can do it, I don’t see why I can’t…My legs are as long as his.’”
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I cannot guarantee Members that I shall talk about anything as interesting as his wife’s family history, and I am sure we are all sorry that he cut his long story short, but perhaps we will hear the rest of it another time.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on being successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot and making progress with his Bill, and I am sure he will be heartened by the widespread support that it has received. I certainly do not intend to do anything to prevent it from making further progress today. Therefore, as is customary on these occasions, I shall try to keep my remarks relatively brief.
This Bill makes
“provision consequential on Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty”
and amends the Antarctic Act 1994. That Act implements most of the Antarctic treaty requirements in domestic law, and this Bill seeks to implement further treaty measures.
The Bill has two parts. The first addresses liability and the annex, and deals with environmental emergency liability and the concept that the polluter pays. The second part amends the 1994 Act to allow the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to permit foreign nationals on British-led expeditions and to give additional protection for the Antarctic environment, including its marine life and other living creatures.
Antarctica is a fascinating and important continent. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud had a Westminster Hall debate on the Antarctic.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am sorry for interrupting my hon. Friend so early in what I hope will be a fine and Gladstonian-length speech, but I was wondering whether the requirement to allow foreign nationals on British expeditions is a requirement of EU law, and whether, once again, the European Union is getting its grubby mitts on our legislative process.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point and, as he knows, I share his horror of the European Union sticking its nose into our affairs. His question might be best answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, as this is his Bill, but I think that provision is intended to allay the concerns of universities who might have foreign nationals on teams wanting to carry out research in the Antarctic. At present, the required process is quite difficult, and involves having to get foreign nationals’ own countries to sort things out. The idea is that it would be a lot easier for research institutions in this country if the British Government could sort everything out. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is, however, always wise to be on the look-out for encroachment by the European Union, the consequences of which are hardly ever in our favour.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that; he is as vigilant as ever on these matters. I understand why the mention of the Soviet Union drew his immediate thoughts to the European Union, as there is very little to choose between the two.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Is my hon. Friend aware that the European Union has just issued a new logo with the hammer and sickle at the very top of it, which makes the connection explicit?
Philip Davies
I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend for that update, and that we are all alarmed, if not surprised, by that development.
In addition to the treaty signatories, we now have “other consultative parties”, such as Brazil, China, India, Germany, Italy, Holland, Finland, Sweden, Spain, and even Ecuador, Uruguay, Peru, Bulgaria, Poland and South Korea. There are also other “non-consultative parties”, including Austria, Belarus, Canada, Colombia, Cuba and the Czech Republic. I will not read them all out, Mr Deputy Speaker, but suffice it to say that plenty of other countries are also involved on a non-consultative basis.
The treaty parties meet each year at the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting, for the purpose of consulting and exchanging information on matters of common interest pertaining to Antarctica. The reasons for the treaty were competing territorial ambitions—my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made much mention of those—and claims by various countries, including the UK, that sometimes overlapped each other. At the same time, Antarctic scientific research was becoming more important, which encouraged the need for the negotiation of a peaceful agreement establishing spheres of interest and the permanent presence of national teams conducting scientific research. The UK made its first territorial claim in 1908 and has had a permanent presence since 1943. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, our zone of presence is called the British Antarctic Territory, which was established to provide survey and meteorological information in the south Atlantic ocean—this is known as the British Antarctic Survey. The BAT is administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, as I am sure we all know, it is located in the coldest and windiest part of the Antarctic and it has no indigenous population.
The main objectives of the treaty can be defined as follows: to demilitarise Antarctica; to establish it as a zone free of nuclear tests and the disposal of radioactive waste; and to ensure that it is used for peaceful purposes only. That is set out in the introduction to the Antarctic treaty 1959, which states:
“Recognizing that it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord”.
Nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive material are prohibited under article V(1). However, article V(2) states:
“In the event of the conclusion of international agreements concerning the use of nuclear energy, including nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste material”—
by—
“all of the Contracting Parties...the rules established under such agreements shall apply in Antarctica.”
Although, hypothetically, this might be allowed and executable, it is rather unlikely that all the parties to the treaty would agree on such actions at the same time.
The second objective is to promote international scientific co-operation in Antarctica, which we have heard quite a lot about today, so I will not dwell on that. The third objective is to set aside disputes over territorial sovereignty. The treaty preserves the incompatible views regarding territory that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke about earlier, but prevents any action from being taken to create, extend, support or deny claims to territorial sovereignty. All these factors make the governance of Antarctica slightly more complex than anywhere else in the world. It is important to say that the treaty is already in force indefinitely.
As with other international treaties and agreements that have been adopted by a large number of states, more than 300 recommendations have been adopted by the Antarctic treaty parties which negotiated separate international agreements, of which three are still in use. These three treaties are collectively known as the Antarctic treaty system—ATS. The three international agreements are the convention for the conservation of Antarctic seals 1972, the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources 1980, and the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty 1991. I will come to each of these separately.
What is important to all these agreements is the geography of Antarctica, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred at the beginning of his remarks. He pointed out that the Antarctic was about one and a half times the size of the USA. It is also one and a third times the size of Europe. It is a huge area, bigger than China and India combined. The Antarctic icecap contains 90% of the ice on earth. It is almost impossible to live there, but Antarctica is well known for its biodiversity, which is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend is so keen on the Bill—whales, seals, mammals, emperor penguins, albatross, vertebrates and microscopic organisms are well adapted to the cold climate. In contrast with the Arctic tundra, the Antarctic tundra lacks large mammal fauna.
According to the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, the first Antarctic marine living resources to be exploited were fur seals and elephant seals early in the 19th century. Subsequently great whales were hunted in Antarctic waters. Most, if not all, Southern ocean whales are migratory. They head into warmer waters during the Antarctic winter and the calves are born in these more hospitable seas, as they would struggle to survive in polar waters during their first few months. No native bird or mammal may be killed or captured without a licence from the competent authority. Thanks to the British Antarctic Survey, I know a great deal more about seals than I did before, but given that time is pressing, I will not indulge the House by passing on some of the facts that I learned about seals, but I commend my hon. Friends to read them.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am sure the subject of seals will be of great interest to the House. Will my hon. Friend make a copy of his research available in the Library?
Philip Davies
I am not sure the demand would justify making the research available in the Library, but I am happy to send it to my hon. Friend. He can do with it what he wishes. I would not want to trouble the House of Commons Library with it, although it is interesting.
The extremely cold and dry climate does not allow rich vegetation, but some flora exists on the continent, which creates the Antarctic tundra in some parts of the continent, particularly the Antarctic peninsula, which has areas of rocky soil that support plant life.
The protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty is of great importance to the Bill. A ban on mining was imposed in 1998. The protocol, which was introduced in 1998, will be reviewed in 2048.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces a number of new statutory duties on those operating in Antarctica, relating to appropriate response action, preventive measures and contingency planning and information. It will come into force when it is officially approved by all the consultative parties which signed up to annex VI in 2005. I would imagine that this would be quite a difficult and lengthy process as there are 28 separate signatories and it is hard to envisage that they would all be content with every single part of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress has been made in getting agreement with all the consultative parties that signed up, because that could be one of the most difficult parts of bringing this into operation. In 2009, the previous Government launched a consultation on a draft Antarctic Bill, and the version that we see today deals with issues raised by that consultation and includes some of the subsequent recommendations.
Clause 1 says that
“the person who organised the activities must take reasonable, prompt and effective response action.”
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has something precisely in mind on what would constitute such action—whether that would be left for the courts to decide, or whether the Government have formulated any definitions. At the moment, it is not particularly clear. The clause also says that the costs that would have to be incurred
“are the costs that the person would have incurred had the person taken reasonable, prompt and effective response action.”
That seems to be rather difficult to determine, and it would be helpful to know exactly how it would be done. How would we know exactly what the costs would have been if people had taken such action in the event that they are before the courts because they have not done so? I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to deal with those matters now or in Committee.
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wayne David
I am pleased that my hon. Friend made that intervention, as it takes me neatly to my next point.
The ESM is important for all parts of the United Kingdom—including Wales—because it will help to ensure that the eurozone becomes a stable and attractive market to which we can take products made in our constituencies of Swansea, Caerphilly and elsewhere. That is central to the debate, and it concerns me greatly that some—although not all—Government Members actually want the eurozone to collapse. They want that outcome for a pathological, ideological reason, without realising the immediate material consequences that it would have for jobs in our constituencies.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I would classify myself as one of the people who does want the eurozone to collapse, because I think that only with the collapse of the euro can the economies of Europe begin to grow again. It was the same when the Asian crisis hit, and the economies that devalued were the ones that grew again fastest and soonest.
Wayne David
I simply do not agree, and there are plenty of academics and learned people who do not agree either. Most importantly of all, plenty of workers and employers in my constituency do not believe it. As I said, I am not suggesting for one moment that the EU and the eurozone are particularly popular with people—they are not, and I fully understand why not—but in the end people are concerned about their livelihoods and their prosperity, which depend on jobs. That is why it is important for this country to do everything we can to ensure that the eurozone is helped to get over its present difficulties and made prosperous once again.
Wayne David
I agree that the IMF is an example of good practice, and I think it laudable that the ESM is basing much of its operation on the way in which it has operated, successfully, for a number of years. Don’t get me wrong: I am not against private sector involvement—quite the opposite—but I think that clear terms of reference need to be established and monitored.
For that reason, and for all the other reasons that I have given, I think that both new clauses are eminently sensible. I think they will enhance both parliamentary democracy and the role of this Parliament. I also think that, ultimately, they will send our partners in Europe the extremely positive message that we are serious not only about establishing the ESM, but about ensuring that it works effectively well into the future.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who almost made the new clauses sound respectable. In fact, they are some of the most splendidly pointless measures that we have seen in the House; they serve absolutely no purpose.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am all in favour of scrutiny. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I am the greatest admirer in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who scrutinises with an eye like a hawk and ensures that every aspect of scrutiny is carried out to the fullest, most proper and deepest effect. However, I thought that the new clause might be an example of the socialist sense of humour, which involves tabling a motion that is completely and utterly meaningless and, indeed, the opposite of what the Bill is all about.
Perhaps the Members concerned did not listen to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who explained—beautifully, elegantly and with charm—what the Bill was all about. He also explained what the treaty was about, namely getting us out of responsibility and liability for the eurozone mess so that we would not have to pay to prop up the eurozone. The new clause proposes that the poor old Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has quite enough to do—for instance, he has a growth strategy to draw up, and his infrastructure Bill will be presented to us next week—must write a report on why a fund of which we are not part, and to which we do not contribute, has had an effect on the propping up the stability of the eurozone, which is a matter for the people—
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The Government need to cut through the dither, and the Chancellor needs to see to that as a matter of urgency. However, I do not really understand why the hon. Gentleman objects to the Treasury’s conducting an impact assessment of the operation of the European sustainability mechanism. He takes a great interest in European matters, and I find it surprising that he does not welcome further transparency and further scrutiny of such an important issue.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady flatters me. I do indeed take an interest in the issue.
It is extremely important for the Government to be scrutinised on what they do in terms of European policy, but I do not think that we should scrutinise Her Majesty’s Government in relation to what the Germans or the French do, because that is a matter for them. We are outside this mechanism. The whole point is that a new mechanism is being set up to ensure that there is no liability for the UK taxpayer. What is the Chancellor supposed to say? Must he send a letter to Parliament saying “Something over which I have no authority, something to which we have made no contribution, something which is not actually British in any sense, has worked”, or has not worked? We can read that for ourselves in the Financial Times, or in other reputable newspapers.
We really do not need the Chancellor to be bogged down in more bureaucracy. There is a difference between scrutiny and bureaucracy. Scrutiny is about challenging Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that the Government’s decisions are in the best interests of the British people. These decisions—the European stability mechanism decisions—will not be Government decisions in any sense once the treaty is passed, and once this Act is enforced. They will be decisions over which we will have no control, and that is the whole point. We do not want to have any control, because we are not part of the eurozone, and most sane and sensible people hope that we never will be. It is our aim and ambition to be out of the eurozone.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is confusing two completely different things. One is placing an obligation on Her Majesty’s Government, and the other is expressing an opinion.
I might wish to give advice to the central bank of China. I might wish to say that it was about time that it cut its interest rates—which I think it should—and used its reserve requirements for the banks. It has been putting the rates up, and it is about time that they came down. I think that China needs a monetary boost. But are the Chinese Government listening, and have they the slightest interest in my opinion of their monetary policy? I very much doubt it. [Hon. Members: “Of course!”] Hon. Members flatter me again, but I fear that even the Chinese ambassador, most assiduous gentleman though he is, will not report the opinions of the House of Commons on China’s monetary policy. I fear that even if the Foreign Office, our most esteemed and distinguished Foreign Office, that Rolls-Royce Department—possibly a Rolls-Royce made rather more recently, in the 1970s, with a little bit of engine trouble and a little bit of oil leakage, but none the less with very fine leather inside and looking very nice—sent a message to China saying what its monetary policy should be, the Chinese would not take any notice, and the same applies to the new clause. This is not our business; it is a matter for the eurozone countries. We specifically excluded ourselves, and then the Opposition came up with this wonderful wheeze.
I suppose that that is admirable, in a way. The Opposition have to think something up. As Disraeli said, the job of the Opposition is to oppose. All the finest socialist brains in England were sitting around discussing how to amend a Bill consisting of a handful of clauses saying nothing much except that Her Majesty’s Government would be saved from further liability for the euro. “What shall we do? What bold step of policy shall we take? How shall we strive to convince our electors that there will be a new dawn, the new Jerusalem that the socialists are always looking for? We must ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a report that is so hard-hitting, forceful and solid that it constitutes a new policy.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) looks as if he wishes to intervene, and I will of course give way to him.
Mr MacShane
I assume that this will only be reported in Hansard, and will thus remain a state secret. The hon. Gentleman is pretty much making my speech for me.
That said, I think that the Chinese should listen to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the clatter of chopsticks in North East Somerset should be heard in Beijing when it comes to policy. It should also be noted that we do about £48 billion-worth of trade a year with the other EU member states, and what they do matters to us. The notion that if we do not sign the treaty the continent will be cut off has been a traditional approach throughout the ages of the Tory isolationists of whom he is the most wondrous representative in today’s House.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must disappoint him. I support the treaty. For once when it comes to a European issue, I think that the Government have got it right, because what they are doing gets us out of the problem. That is the whole point. Once we have got ourselves out of the problem, how Europe deals with it and funds it is a matter for Europe. Yes, it is important that we trade with them, and yes, it is important for there to be stability within the eurozone—although I would prefer a new stability without a euro and with individual currencies, as I think that that would be a better and more prosperous stability—but a report by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House on the matter is not going to sell an extra widget to Belgium.
Andrew Bridgen
My hon. Friend is as eloquent as ever. Does he agree that, given the speed at which events unravel during the eurozone crisis, even if this were our business—which it is not—an annual report would be at best irrelevant?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend’s intervention is incredibly helpful, because it has reminded me of the one important point that I wanted to make in this little speech against the new clauses. Absolutely the only risk posed to us by the treaty is that it will not lead to repeal of the regulation setting up the EFSM, and that we will remain liable or another article 122 bail-out fund will come through. That is the only risk left to us, and if such a situation were to arise, the House would want to scrutinise it immediately, rather than wait for some pedestrian report to be delivered.
These new clauses are glorious in their way—glorious in their irrelevance and in their failing to appreciate what the whole point of the treaty is. They are a delightful effort to make sure that there is some debate, and they have given me an opportunity to speak when I had, for once, intended to be silent in a European debate. Because of their rank irrelevance, I could do nothing but speak out against them. I have every confidence that Her Majesty’s Government, with a careful operation by the Whips Office, will ensure that they are firmly defeated.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is a real pleasure to speak in favour of this Bill, because it is surprisingly important. The more we have debated it, the more clear its importance has become. It is important because it saves the British taxpayer risking substantial amounts of money. When the treaty was agreed, I was disappointed that we had not asked for more, because Her Majesty’s Government had a strong negotiating position and might have been able to start the process of renegotiation and ask why we did not have a more à la carte Europe, to use a French term, if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, against the preferred guidance of “Erskine May” that one should stick to English.
The Government have achieved something considerable by appearing to be very modest. We have seen the clawback of powers from Europe for almost the first time. Under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, we had opened ourselves up to substantial and potentially unlimited liabilities for the failures of the eurozone. Once it was accepted that article 122 could be used for emergency bail-outs and the regulation was not challenged, it was conceivable that further regulations could be introduced and that, although each one would have been subject to challenge individually, once the first was accepted, there could have been a continuous chain of bail-outs, resulting in billions and billions of pounds’ worth of liabilities for us.
If I may make a cheap party political point—there is an occasion for such a thing—it is worth noting that it was the previous Labour Government who signed us up, during their dying days, to this almost unlimited liability.
Emma Reynolds
It is always a pleasure to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. I have in my hand an explanatory memorandum by a previous Economic Secretary, who is now the International Development Secretary. It states:
“The Government regrets that the Scrutiny Committee did not have time to consider this document”—
meaning the document on the establishment of a European financial stabilisation mechanism—
“before it was agreed at Council. It should be noted that whilst agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the previous administration,”
to which the hon. Gentleman has referred,
“cross-party consensus had been gained.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg
When the hon. Lady started with, “I have in my hand”, I thought she was going to say, “a piece of paper”, and that we were going to be promised peace in our time, but, sadly, she offered party political disagreement instead. It was more like a battle than peace. All I would say is that the Government of the day were Labour. I accept that the incoming Government failed to challenge the use of article 122—they should have done that and it was a pity that they did not—but that was where we were: socialist extravagance spending our money and signing us up to bailing out the whole of Europe over and over again.
What did we get in place of that? We got a sound Conservative Government, with the help, for once—the worthwhile, marvellous and delightful help—of our Liberal Democrat coalition partners, who were robust enough, which some might say is most out of character, to support us in getting powers back from the European Union, which has almost never happened before. That is important because the whole basis on which the powers of the EU have been built—the acquis communautaire—has been one whereby it gets powers and never gives them away again. It is the doctrine of the occupied field that once Europe has taken over a policy area, it is in control of it and it never goes back to the nation state.
It is therefore a real triumph for the Government to have got this agreement on the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and that the article 122 mechanism has been cast to history. Although that is not being said officially—we do not have a signed document saying that article 122 will not be used—we have a very strong political agreement between all the Heads of Government and Heads of State, signed up to by the Commission, and, most importantly of all, a new mechanism.
The other good thing about the mechanism and the treaty approach that has brought it to us is that we have a proper parliamentary procedure to ratify it. It is so marvellous and commendable of this Government that they are taking parliamentary accountability and democracy seriously. They could have done it differently. They could have just bulldozed it through on a quiet Wednesday afternoon in a debate lasting an hour and a half or two hours, but they chose not to do that. They introduced a Bill that required a proper process and they actually allowed time for the debate—so much time that we may even finish early. That is another good argument for parliamentary scrutiny—time is not used up unnecessarily in the House of Commons; it is used for proper consideration of what the Government are doing.
This new Session’s resolution can therefore be: let us support this marvellous Government and let us support the Front Bench and Treasury Bench representatives as they go boldly forth. They stand up, show backbone and act like a lion—not, as somebody may have once said, like Bagpuss—against Europe. They make sure that the British position is put clearly and forcefully and that powers are returned home.
There is a great lesson for Her Majesty’s Government in this: when they show backbone, force and courage, not only do they receive rapturous support from Members on the bustling Back Benches, but they receive support from the country at large. As the Brussels directives are sent away and batted back home, so the opinion poll rating rises. I hope that the Government will learn from this and act on it in future.
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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.
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.
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—
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.
EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
I can give the hon. Gentleman two assurances. We are members of the UN Human Rights Council in our own right. When there is no unanimously agreed common foreign and security policy position, the United Kingdom’s representative will speak on behalf of the United Kingdom Government’s position. When there is a unanimously agreed CFSP position, normally that will be represented by the European Union’s representative, but member states do speak—particularly if the occasion is sufficiently important—in support of the EU representative’s view, giving extra weight to the views expressed on behalf of all 27 members. It is best left to judge on a case-by-case basis exactly what tactic will be the most effective in delivering the outcome we want, but I take to heart the hon. Gentleman’s point about wanting to hear the vigorous expression of British policy objectives, whether on our own or in support of a unanimously agreed EU position.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way in a second debate this afternoon.
If there is not a unanimously agreed position, can the EU representative speak at all, or do they have to remain silent?
Mr Lidington
If there is no unanimously agreed position, there is no locus for the EU representative to speak at all; they have a right to express a view only when there is an agreed European Union position. As hon. Members on both sides will probably recall, there have been occasions when, regrettably, European Union member states have split two or three different ways on a particular issue before the Human Rights Council.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Does that apply to the noble Baroness Ashton as well? Can she speak on foreign policy matters only with the consent of the British Government?
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.
Court of Justice of the European Union
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
We can debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) does so robustly, whether the European Court of Justice should enjoy such widespread jurisdiction. However, what we are talking about is how we should address the problems in the system as it currently exists under treaty—the backlogs and delays, both at first instance and appeal. A system of courts in which justice is denied simply because the system is unable to cope with its work load is not in anybody’s interests.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on that very point?
Mr Lidington
Of course I will give way to my hon. Friend, although I will be anxious to make progress thereafter.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is exceptionally generous, as usual. However, I am not entirely sure that his last point is right. It could be in people’s interests for the Court to be bunged up. If one takes the view that the European Court of Justice is increasingly extending its powers into areas where it ought not interfere, anything that stops it doing that is all to the good.
Mr Lidington
A court of law and legal system should serve the interests of parties to that legal system. I go back to the old English adage that justice delayed is justice denied; my hon. Friend will be familiar with that and no doubt champion it as a matter of principle. I would argue that that principle should apply on a European level as well as on a United Kingdom or English level.
The reforms that we are discussing involve, first, the creation of a vice-president to assist the president of the Court in their role of managing litigation and overseeing the business of the Court. The vice-president will be appointed from among existing judges; an additional judge will not be required.
Secondly, there is to be an increase in the number of judges sitting in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, which generally handles the most sensitive cases. That is to allow broader participation by ECJ judges in general in Grand Chamber cases. It should increase the wider expertise of the Court and ensure greater consistency in how cases are handled. Thirdly, the reforms propose a reduction in the number of presidents of five-judge chambers who have to sit in the Grand Chamber at the same time. That will allow the chamber presidents more time to administer their separate chambers, each of which handles a substantial case load that should, as a consequence of this reform, be enabled to progress more quickly.
The reforms also include the power to appoint up to three temporary judges to the civil service tribunal, which is the employment tribunal for European Union officials. The problem with the tribunal at the moment is that it has only seven judges, which means that if even one judge is absent for a lengthy period, perhaps because of illness, cases can be delayed. Appointing temporary judges will prevent those delays from occurring. The temporary judges will be appointed from a panel of former judges of the European Court and will be paid only for the days that they actually work; they will not be on a long-term retainer or salary.
Finally, there is a key reform to the lower court, the General Court, which has a substantial backlog of cases. As is proposed for the ECJ—the upper tier—a vice-president will be created for the General Court, again from among the existing judges, to assist the president in managing litigation.
The Government have been active in negotiating the details of these reforms, and I am glad to say that because of our efforts two potential reforms about which we had concerns that we explained to the European Scrutiny Committee have now been removed. One of those was the proposal to remove the 10-day so-called period of grace granted to litigants to submit pleadings to the ECJ over and above the standard deadline period. We and other member states argued that removing the period of grace would harm our ability to submit pleadings and damage our national interest. We have protected the period of grace and ensured that not only the Government but, importantly, British businesses that may be party to ECJ cases have the maximum possible time to submit pleadings to the Court.
The other potential reform was the addition of 12 judges at the General Court. The Council has concluded that that reform requires further consideration and should be reserved for a later date. The rationale for the proposal was, again, the substantial backlog of cases—currently more than 1,300—at the General Court. It was also, in our view, very important that the reform was got right. We wanted to ensure that the arrangements for appointing any new judges are fit for purpose and that any increase in the number of judges should be consistent with the requirement for minimal spending in the current economic climate. We argued that any increase in the number of judges should go hand in hand with a programme of efficiency savings in the ECJ’s budget. The removal of the reform from the package at this stage is in line with our interests, but we may return to it at a future date.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I begin by thanking the Minister, because it is down to his initiative that we can have this debate under the European Union Act 2011, which was a major improvement in our procedures to enable anything altering the structures of the Court to come before Parliament and to be the subject of a proper debate and motion. That is all to the good and increases the power of the House in relationship to the EU.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the European Court of Justice is not a proper, honest, decent court, like our courts are. I remind the House that these are the judges who ruled to their own benefit against that legal maxim that a judge should never be a judge in this own cause. They ruled to increase their own pay, and we should always remember what an improper and rotten court it is. We are dealing here with a small package of measures that will make it a more efficient, if no less improper, court by enabling it to attend to some of its business faster.
There is a wonderful paragraph from the helpful Library document. It is a quote from the Max Planck Institute, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) cited, about what the European Court is up to:
“Whether it is buying a car, going on holiday or taking out an instalment loan, few aspects of our everyday lives are conceivable today without reference to European Union law. Countless directives and regulations, which set out the rights of consumers and entrepreneurs, apply not only in international legal undertakings, but also in domestic legal transactions. Which party has the law on its side is increasingly dependent on the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which ensures the implementation of European law within the EU.”
That is a rotten state of affairs.
There were great debates in the 18th century in this House on the motion:
“That the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”
In every debate on the EU, we should remind ourselves that the power of the EU has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. That is why I challenged my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe over whether it was a good thing to make the European Court more efficient. In response, he challenged me with a proposition that I would normally accept, because he quoted an ancient British maxim—one probably invented in Somerset, where all good things come from—and it is true that justice delayed is justice denied. But the key word is “justice”, and the European Court of Justice might have that word in its title, but it is not its essence. Its essence is as a political entity. It is seeking to increase the power of a federal European state and turn the EU into a functioning country. That is why the House should be cautious about doing anything that makes it more powerful, because it is fundamentally hostile to us.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I have much sympathy with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech in particular. Would it not be a good idea to test the water somewhat by seeking to repatriate some powers—some power, even—to Britain, to see what the reaction of the European Union would be? There is much talk of repatriation, but let us take back just one simple power: I would start with the common fisheries policy, as he might know.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is so wise in these matters. We ought to be looking at the inefficiencies in the European Court of Justice and saying, “Could these matters be decided in our own courts?” Is there a way in which, instead of saying, “Give them more power; give them more money; and give them more judges,” we can say, “Let these laws be determined in our country.”?
It is interesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, that one of the reasons for the increase in the European Court of Justice’s work load is that our courts are sending it judgments for preliminary approval and guidance on what European law says. Would it not be better to repatriate that? Indeed, when we are in the process of negotiating on the European Court and how to make it more efficient, this is surely the opportunity to do so.
Mr Cash
On the preliminary reference procedure, Mr Rösler says:
“The judges in Luxembourg constitute a supranational court beyond national jurisdiction, dealing with an incredibly diverse range of issues that no national judge is faced with”.
He goes on to say that
“in contrast to national judges, the EU judges are not specialized in specific fields.”
Is it any surprise that they make such a mess of things?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is a rather terrifying thought that we have a court that its own friends say does not have judges with the expertise to rule on issues, but that instead of saying, “Well, let’s decide it in our own courts, where we have judges of proper expertise and standing,” we should be just appointing more second-rate judges to Europe, to get them to sort it out. That cannot possibly be the right approach to take.
We in the United Kingdom have a very high view of judges. We have been fortunate in this nation to have judges who have been rigorous figures of the law. They have not been political participants. However, the European Court is not of that category or standing. It is part of the operation of the European Union; and, along with the Commission and the European Parliament, it is in a constant battle and struggle to take powers from the nation states. Anything that we do to reform the European Court should mean bringing powers back to our own courts, where they will be judged on their merits and not on a scheme to push forward the programme of ever-closer union.
It is worth remembering, if anyone questions whether that is true, what happened in the United States in the 19th century, when the Supreme Court was avowedly federal in its approach and the 10th amendment was increasingly ignored to empower the central authorities. The European Court of Justice is doing exactly the same thing. Therefore, I go back to the intervention that I made on the Minister: the more the system is gummed up, the better. The fewer opportunities there will be to interfere in the nation state, the more opportunity we will have to repatriate powers to our own systems and our own judges. Therefore, although the matter before us is minor and essentially trivial, let it go through, but let us watch like hawks any further changes that the European Court may seek to make, to ensure that this drift of power to the continent ceases.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I would question the judges’ probity on one thing in particular: their ruling that their own pay should be increased, which was fundamentally improper.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend has made his point clearly for the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked about the risk of further efforts to enhance the powers and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. He referred in particular to the possibility of the introduction of a right to petition the Court and take cases there. I can assure him that, notwithstanding what learned professors might say, no such proposal is on the table at the moment. No such proposal forms part of the regulations before us. The subject has not crossed my desk and it is not a matter of live discussion among Governments at present.
My hon. Friend also asked about the timing of the debate and expressed concern at what he believed to be an absence of time for the European Scrutiny Committee to consider this matter. I would challenge him on that. Looking back at the record, I see that we provided explanatory memorandums to that Committee at various times during the course of the negotiations: first, on 28 April 2011, then on 24 June 2011, 30 September 2011 and 20 April this year. I wrote to him last week to advise him of the latest developments and to request that the Committee clear these measures from scrutiny.
As for the most recent developments, we are working against the decision by the Cypriot presidency to table these measures for discussion and decision at a Council meeting in the very near future. My concern in writing to my hon. Friend as I did was to ensure that his Committee was aware of the need for urgency if the Committee and Parliament were to have the opportunity to express their views and, in the case of Parliament, to take a decision about the UK’s approach to these regulations ahead of that Council meeting.
The final point on which I was questioned—
Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacShane
Because of the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Conservative party, in that when action is needed to allow HSBC and RBS—British firms—to continue functioning and operating in a Europe that needs to keep its head above water, and which therefore might need some help from the IMF, all we hear from the Conservatives is that we should not be part of it. However, what is sauce for the RBS and HSBC goose—going and asking for euro taxpayer handouts—has to be sauce for the UK gander. We are all in this together.
Mr MacShane
Although I will lose time, I will give way—it is the hon. Gentleman, for heaven’s sake.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; I will be very brief. RBS has business in Ireland. It is lending against its loans in Ireland, which are in euros and are therefore a matter for the eurozone. Of course it ought to be able to get money from the ECB on that basis.
Mr MacShane
And 50% of our exports go to the eurozone; therefore, it makes sense for us to help the eurozone stay alive. However, that will be difficult, because in our broad economic and fiscal policy we are more European than the Europeans. We are implementing anti-growth, deflationary, 1930s-type policies that Herbert Hoover or Heinrich Brüning would have instantly recognised. That is why unemployment is going up, why job creation is falling and why growth is flatlining. The paradox is that we need new policies for Europe, but they are not on offer from this Government, this Chancellor or this Prime Minister, who is entirely on the same wavelength as Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and all the others who are currently pursuing job-killing, growth-crushing, deflationary, austerity, Treasury-driven financial and fiscal policies in Europe. I am surprised that we have not heard the terms “Camkozy” or “Merclegg”, because there is undoubtedly very little difference between the right-wing Conservative policy of our political leaders and that of the politicians controlling the big continental countries.
Let us be clear: the Commission is not involved in this. The European technocracy and bureaucrats are not involved in this; they are utterly sidelined. This is about the raw politics of anger in Germany against Greece, and the raw politics in Greece against Germany. It is also about the raw politics of the Conservative party in this House, some of whose members rightly feel that all the pledges made by their leader, now the Prime Minister, on referendums, renegotiation and repatriation have not in any way been delivered. That is what is causing upset and concern in the House of Commons. I am sure that it was also raw politics in Ireland that led the Taoiseach to agree to the referendum there. We know that Monsieur Hollande has said that, if elected, he will renegotiate the treaty. We also know that Mr Rajoy, the new conservative leader in Spain, has said that he will not implement a Merkozy-type dose, because Spain could not take it.
We need a new approach in Europe, and in this country. I would have no problem if, after 15 years of wallowing in Euroscepticism, the Conservative party rejoined the real European world. I would like to see Conservative MEPs sitting with other centre-right MEPs, precisely to create the links that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire mentioned. We need more engagement, and not in order to join some Euro-federalist nirvana—that is not on offer at the moment. We are living in not a two-tiered Europe but a multi-tiered Europe, and we have to be part of it. We are not at the moment, but I hope that the Government can change their course before it is too late.
Mr Buckland
I yield to no one in my respect for my hon. Friend, and he and I have had many conversations on these issues, but we cannot get away from the point that the European Union is an exercise of political will first and foremost. It is the political will of its members that drives the future course of the European Union. I accept that we all work within a legal framework, but let us be clear about where we are. The 25 have agreed to sign a treaty that is not an EU treaty. If there is to be any proposed fold-in in five years, the British veto will apply. We have the right to say no, and that is an important point that we need to underline.
Mr Buckland
I shall take an intervention from my very good and honourable Friend.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. We may not have the ability to say no, because the issue may qualify for enhanced co-operation in five years’ time.
Mr Buckland
As a lawyer, I love a legal debate, and bearing in mind what has been said and the aspirations signed up to by the 25, I think there is a very strong case for saying that when the five-year period comes to an end in 2021 or ’22, we will still be in a good position, bearing in mind the clear political will that the Prime Minister has shown by his refusal to participate, and to allow the United Kingdom to participate. That is a very clear statement of intent, and I would be happy to argue the case on that point in five years’ time, just as I am happy, and happy for the British Government, to argue the case about some of the articles in the fiscal compact. Where there is reference to the European Court of Justice, it is incumbent on the Government to argue the point, and to make it clear that we wish the compact to be entirely outwith the institutions of the EU.
Those are matters of legal debate. I do not accept that they are now set in stone, or in some way unarguable or unimpeachable. Let us bear in mind what happened in the economic crisis of 2008, when member states cast to the four winds rules that we all thought immutable. We need to remind ourselves at all times that the institution is an exercise of political will or it is nothing. That is why clear expressions of political will, such as the one that we heard from the Prime Minister in December, are the right approach. I welcome the debate, and I thank my hon. Friends for taking part.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on getting this crucial debate, and say how shocked I am by my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) for their view that the legality does not desperately matter and it is all about politics? This is a novel and somewhat eccentric view for parliamentarians to take, when the heart of the matter is the law and the detail of the law. Without the rule of law, what we are doing here ends up being a waste of time.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is bursting to intervene, so I happily give way to him.
Mr Buckland
As I said, as a lawyer I realise that although the law is not irrelevant—of course it is not—political will often takes precedence, as we have seen in the history of the development of the EU. Surely my hon. Friend can accept that.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am afraid to say that I disagree with my hon. and almost learned Friend. Law is the foundation of what politicians do, and politicians use their political will through the law. Indeed, they have the ability through Parliament to change the law, but they cannot just ignore it.
That is why I want to come on to Sir Jon Cunliffe’s important letter. He makes two significant points. First, he notes that
“the EU institutions must only be used outside the EU Treaties with the consent of all Member States, and must respect the EU Treaties.”
In response to a question at a meeting of the European Scrutiny Committee last week from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), the Minister for Europe—who, if I may say so, was extremely helpful at the evidence session—said when asked whether permission had been given by the Government for the EU treaties to be used:
“No, we have not been asked so to do.”
It ought to be of grave concern to the House and to the country that the member states of the European Union, excluding us and the Czech Republic, have decided to proceed with a treaty without establishing that they are following the correct legal forms.
Mr Cash
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that yesterday in the European Parliament, which I attended as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, in a dialogue between MEPs and MPs, one of the French representatives said from the platform to the chairman that she did not think it appropriate for me to be able to make certain comments because the United Kingdom Parliament and the United Kingdom were not part of the eurozone. My hon. Friend might find that rather extraordinary.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Indeed, but one never knows what people might say in relation to the European Union.
As I was saying, it is a shocking state of affairs that our partners in Europe should want to proceed with a treaty without even bothering to go through the proper forms to ensure that that treaty is lawful under EU law. They have not even asked the question. It may be that they know what the answer will be, but if they do, they are one up on most Members of Parliament.
The other point raised in Sir Jon Cunliffe’s letter is that
“we must reserve our position on the proposed treaty and its use of the institutions”.
This, again, is very important because what we are trying to find out is whether the Government are reserving their position on the current legality of the treaty, or how the treaty will be used in practice. If it is the former—if the Government are concerned about the current legality of the treaty—it is important that they act now to establish their concern and to have a judgment from the European Court of Justice, rather than waiting. If the Government wait, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said earlier, he who is silent is seen to consent, and we will find that we have allowed the treaty to be implemented and we will have lost our ability to have recourse—
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is a particular honour to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham.
Martin Horwood
It is an equal pleasure to intervene on my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for allowing me to do so. Does he accept that by reserving their position, the British Government may gain something of a tactical advantage by perhaps retaining the ability to challenge any future perceived breach of this treaty and therefore encouraging compliance with the European Union treaties?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. Friend because a key part of the treaty may already be in breach of European Union law. I refer hon. Members to article 8, which states:
“If the European Commission, after having given the Contracting Party concerned the opportunity to submit its observations, concludes in its report that such Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3(2), the matter will be brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union by one or more Contracting Parties.”
What that says is that the European Commission may end up enforcing requirements under the stability pact in direct contradiction of TFEU—the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—126(10). We discussed this at length in the European Scrutiny Committee and the Foreign Office’s wise legal counsel, Mr Ivan Smyth, gave us a very helpful answer—that in treaty terms, “will” is not an obligation, and if it were an obligation, the wording would have to be stronger than “will”.
It seems to me that that is a pretty narrow basis for maintaining the legality of what the treaty requires the Commission to do. Let us bear in mind that under the treaty law, the European Commission does not have the authority to enforce the requirements of the stability pact on member states; under this treaty it does not quite have that authority directly, but it is so close to doing so that it would not make any difference at all.
A further aspect of the treaty concerns me. Article 16 says that the treaty will be rolled into the TFEU within five years, so it will become part of the whole package of European Union law within five years. It is currently thought, though others may think differently, that it would not have been possible for this treaty to be brought in under enhanced co-operation. However, there is a school of thought that maintains that the European Stability Mechanism treaty which is awaiting ratification by Parliament would allow enhanced co-operation to be used, in which case this treaty could be rolled into the European Union’s treaties without the say-so of the House, under enhanced co-operation. We should be deeply concerned about that, not least—going back to article 8—because it refers to how countries may be fined. Let us bear in mind that the treaty is supposed to be all about the eurozone member states, and is nothing to do with non-eurozone members and nothing at all to do with the United Kingdom because we are not a signatory and it is not yet part of the TFEU. But if that is the case, why does it say
“The amounts imposed on a Contracting Party whose currency is the euro”—
that is, a fine of up to 0.1% of GDP—
“shall be payable to the European Stability Mechanism. In other cases, payments shall be made to the general budget of the European Union”?
We have here a treaty that is making provision for fining non-euro members for their budgets, even potentially ones that have not signed up to the original treaty if it is rolled in within five years, as the treaty itself requires. That is why this debate is so important to establish the legality and see whether we can at this early stage stop this treaty—a genuine veto, rather than a soggy veto—or whether we will find that by doing nothing now, by being friendly, kind and generous to our neighbours, we do not really help them with the economic situation that they face. I agree with those who say it would be better for some countries to default and devalue. We will instead find that by being silent, we have consented to a treaty that is against our fundamental national interests.
Mr Lidington
I will not give way again, because I have limited time and there are a lot of points to which I wish to respond.
I will not dwell on what happened in December because I want to get on to what hon. Members asked me this afternoon. However, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have now sent detailed accounts of the approach to the December European Council meeting and the events that took place shortly afterwards to my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) in their capacities as Chairs respectively of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Treasury Committee. Those letters have been copied to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and are already available on the websites of the Foreign Affairs and Treasury Committees. I am making arrangements for them to be placed in the Library today.
The Prime Minister’s decision in December ensured that the treaty, to which 25 countries subscribed, was “outside” the European Union. As my right hon. Friend told the House in January,
“we are not part of it and it places no obligations on the UK. It does not have the force of EU law for us, nor does it for the EU institutions or for the countries that have signed it”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 678.]
I want to deal with some of the points that my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) made. The treaty does not govern how the European Union shall act. It imposes certain obligations on the contracting states, which are linked to the EU. However, in so far as it refers to EU treaties, it makes it clear that they and their rules have primacy and apply in any circumstance where there might be overlap or apparent contradiction.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset asked about the prospect of non-eurozone members being fined under the fiscal compact. If a non-eurozone member state has ratified the treaty, until it joins the euro, it can decide which parts of titles III and IV of the compact apply to it. Once that country joins the euro, the whole fiscal compact applies to it. The fiscal compact rule in article 3(2) and the jurisdiction of the Court under article 8 fall within title III, so pending membership of the euro, the non-euro countries can choose whether they wish to be bound by those aspects of the compact. A member state, whether in the euro or not, can be fined only once it has ratified the fiscal compact through its national means.
My hon. Friend also asked about the risk of the treaty somehow being imposed on us in the next five years by underhand means.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I want to clarify the point that I was trying to make. The treaty might possibly come in through enhanced co-operation, so although it would not formally be imposed on us, it would reach the status of an EU treaty if the current treaty that we are in the process of ratifying is ratified.
Mr Lidington
I do not know whether we will have time to explore that this afternoon. I may write to my hon. Friend setting out the answer in greater detail, but I do not believe that his fears are justified. Treaty change can take place only under the procedures for treaty change in the treaty on European union and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. It cannot take place under enhanced co-operation, which can, in any case, bind only those countries that choose to participate in it. That is clear in the treaties.
The role given to the European Court in the compact in relation to the balanced budget rule—and, indeed, the imposition of that rule—could not be introduced under enhanced co-operation. Although the compact declares that it has the objective of being incorporated in the EU treaties in five years, that is only an aspiration, not a given. Any changes to the EU treaties would have to be agreed by all 27 member states, using the procedures under the EU treaties themselves for treaty amendment. Change cannot be made through the EFSM treaty, which is to be signed intergovernmentally by the eurozone members only.
European Council
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacShane
I do not really want to get into a debate about the markets as I am also pro-market, but the markets are also Mr Hester, the hedge fund billionaires and the donors to the Conservative party who make a fortune out of speculation and who have so increased inequalities in the past 30 years that we now have a generalised social crisis that might cause severe dislocation.
I do not share the cataclysmic views that some have about what the Prime Minister did on 9 December. I think he was ill-advised, that he allowed the Treasury to run the negotiations and that the key decision was taken at a time—2.30 am—when no sane person should take a decision. None the less, the plain fact is that across the rest of the European Union there is a sense that Britain does not want to engage or be fully part of the EU. Last week, at a conference with the former French Defence Minister who negotiated the French side of the French-British defence treaty of 2010, I was surprised to hear his extraordinary, virulent attack on what one could call “Albion perfide” and how Britain was no longer a defence player with France, was not prepared to co-operate and was doing all it could, he said, to sabotage the good effects that the treaty would have. That is the reputation we have and that worries me.
It also worries me to hear reports that one of the new intake on the Government Benches, whom I shall not name, said in a conference over the weekend that it would have been impossible to have been selected as a Conservative candidate in recent years—or, indeed, to be a Conservative MP—without showing the most strident Euroscepticism. [Interruption.] Well, if there is an exception that proves the rule and if the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is about to make a pro-European speech I shall welcome that. None the less, that is the impression in this country.
Mr MacShane
I have given way to two Europhobes, and I think three would be too many. It is a real worry when one party, the governing party of our country, is so monolithic—without internal debate, internal division or much internal discussion. [Interruption.] I look forward to hearing the speech of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) when he makes it.
Then we have the fundamental problem that this Government and the ruling elites of the European Union are at one. Mr Sarkozy, Mrs Merkel, Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso, Mr Rajoy, Mr Berlusconi and Mr Monti are all applying the 1930s austerity recession approach of making the poor pay and protecting the rich, which is the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government. I do not understand why there is any debate or division at all because for the first time those the other major European Union capitals and the Brussels institutions are on the same wavelength as Her Majesty’s Government. That is why there has to be some policy for growth, as people are pointing out again and again. Mrs Lagarde and Mr Soros have pointed that out and Mr Obama is seeking to achieve it.
Government Members are correct to suggest that not only the European project but the entire western, democratic, liberal, rule-of-law, market economy project is under threat because of a generalised crisis based on inequality and the giving of too much power to money and too little power to people. The answer to that must be forms of solidarity. In 1942, at the height of the war, before we had won El Alamein or turned any corner, Winston Churchill sent a Cabinet memorandum to his colleagues saying, “Hard as it may be to say at this time, I think we should start considering the possibility of a council of Europe for after the war. We need to move towards a united states of Europe where all may travel and trade freely. I think we should conduct studies about how to have economic unity.” How extraordinary that at the height of the war—that was not the Zurich speech—Winston Churchill had that vision for what we have half-achieved, perhaps, in my lifetime and certainly in recent years.
That is also why Mrs Thatcher, our then Prime Minister, after pushing through the Single European Act—the biggest transfer of sovereignty ever in British history—supported the arrival of Jacques Delors as President of the Commission. In 1984, our contribution to the EC budget was £656 million, but by 1990 she had increased it to £2.54 billion, quadrupling Britain’s solidarity budget to the then European Community. When asked about that in the House of Commons, she said that of course we should help our poor friends in Portugal and Greece and also implicitly in Ireland and Spain. She was absolutely right. That is why we set up the International Monetary Fund after the war—precisely to deal with imbalances, crises, sudden recessions and, yes, Government incompetences that produce the kind of problems that Greece and some other countries are facing. It is quite preposterous to say that Britain will renege on its obligations to the IMF. I was happy to vote with the Government on this in the last Division and I certainly hope that Opposition Front Benchers are not going to play the Eurosceptic card on the IMF question if the matter comes back to the House.
Finally, what do we have today? We have the surreal sight of a British Prime Minister in Davos not enjoying himself on the slopes but lecturing other European leaders on what they should do. What example is he citing—£1 trillion-worth of debt, recession economics, mounting unemployment or mounting poverty? There are mounting concerns all over the world, as the Chinese told the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was in Beijing recently, about whether Britain is serious about marginalising itself in Europe and not helping to support Europeans with problems through the IMF. If it is, China cannot be interested in Britain because it is not interested in an isolated, protectionist Britain.
We are taking huge risks with our economy and our nation by promoting these new, protectionist, isolationist politics. It is bad enough that we have to live with 1930s, Treasury-driven economics, but it will be a disaster if Britain continues to have the reputation it has sadly earned internationally as a country that wants to turn its back on Europe and that seriously believes its future could lie only in competing with Belgium for exports to India. This is a turning point for our nation. We either break out of this isolationist, protectionist logjam and work in solidarity with the countries of Europe that are growing and creating jobs and that have much better public finances than we have, or we pretend, in our own little sinking ship, that everything is for the best and this is the best of all possible worlds.
National Referendum on the European Union
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). He made a point about the European convention on human rights and was corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The convention has nothing to do with the European Union and we should not confuse our concepts. The hon. Gentleman also talked about a membership fee. I do not know why he considers our contribution to the European Union to be a fee. The European Union is a political, geographical and economic area, and we play a part in all three aspects. The Foreign Secretary was quite right to say that because of our involvement in the European Union, we have influence with Syria, are able to negotiate with Iran and have greater power.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) has stayed in the Chamber, because he was perfectly right in his short history lesson. He used the eloquent phrase that the European Union, starting with the Common Market, began from “the embers of the second world war”. He was perfectly right about that. He also talked of sovereignty, which keeps popping up in this debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) referred to sovereignty shared. When Ted Heath took us into the European Community, he talked of a “pooled sovereignty”. That is as true today as when he said it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also talked about various aspects of the European Union, such as Ireland and Austria being neutral states. The essence of the European Union is unity in diversity. We may have different views and perspectives, but we are united in that economic, political and geographical space.
We have talked about trade and the single market. The Conservative party is a party of trade and of the single market. The Prime Minister mentioned saying in his discussions on Sunday that the single market would always stay with the 27 member states. He was perfectly right to say that.
I have to take issue with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is no longer in his place—that is not his fault because he sat here for long enough. When I heard his arguments about the deficit and Europe, I wondered what he was talking about. Does he want a McKinley tariff wall? Does he want to stop people buying Volkswagens, Audis, Fords made in Germany, or iPads, which are made not in America but in China? What does he want in a free-trade area, where there is the free movement of goods and people? How can we go back to the era of tariff walls?
Sir Stuart Bell
The hon. Gentleman can sit down because I am not giving way to him.
Teesside is the third largest port in our country. We face out to Europe and we export to Europe. The point has been made many times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), that 50% of our exports go to Europe. Why did Nissan come to Sunderland? It is because it has the Tees and so can export to Europe. Many years ago, I heard Hilary Marquand say that in Europe we take in each others’ washing. That is perfectly true. We trade among ourselves and that trade is a rising tide that, as John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, “lifts all boats”.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) touched on a significant point, which I put to the Prime Minister. He mentioned that the 17 eurozone members at the weekend elected their own president, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The 17 members of the European Union that are in the eurozone will have their own meetings, outwith the 27 countries of which we are a member. Mr Van Rompuy said:
“Rest assured that we will narrowly and closely inform all the preparation of the summits we shall have in the eurozone, and we shall advise of the results.”
As I said carefully in my question to the Prime Minister, Mr Van Rompuy will have Germany on one side and France on the other, so where will we be? We have opted for a two-tier Europe and we have opted out. I am sure that the Prime Minister will do all that he can—
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is amazing how united the Conservative party has been so far today. We had a Eurosceptic statement from the Prime Minister and then a Eurosceptic speech from the Foreign Secretary, so it can only be the Liberal Democrats who are inveigling us down the path of unrighteousness and taking us away from supporting the motion. The Foreign Secretary made six points that must have been written for him by the Liberal Democrats, because he is far too clever a man to have thought of them for himself, because they do not really add up. I shall go through them.
The Foreign Secretary made two points that were essentially trivial—too trivial for a man of his standing. They were, first, that there was no manifesto commitment for a referendum. However, manifestos can deal only with what is known at the time; they cannot deal with things that have not yet arisen. The crisis in the eurozone and the changes that could come from it were not known with clarity at that point, so it is now right to think beyond the manifesto to what the next steps are. That point can therefore be discarded.
The Foreign Secretary then said that we had passed an Act of Parliament to deal with when we could have referendums, and so we did; but again, this House knows many things, but it is not omniscient. It cannot take care of every occasion that may arise when a referendum may be a good idea or every occasion when the British people—whom we should trust—may want one. So, those two points go.
The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable.
Martin Horwood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and we always enjoy his speeches, but will he clear up some confusion about the proposed three-way referendum? Will it use the alternative vote system or first past the post? The motion is not entirely clear.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an extra minute—it is kind of Gloucestershire to give something to Somerset for once. That issue can be dealt with in the legislation. Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.
The fourth point that did not work was that the EU was all or nothing. However, it is already not all or nothing: we already have opt-outs and so forth. There are therefore two remaining points—as those who are good mathematicians will have worked out—that we need to look at. One was that we are dealing with this issue in a crisis and this is therefore the wrong time: “When a man’s house is burning down, you send in the fire brigade.” Quite right. But then, when he wants to hire someone else’s house nearby to find fresh accommodation, they can set the terms of the tenancy. That is the position that we are in with the European Union—a very strong negotiating position, which we should maximise.
We should also note that we cannot solve our financial crisis until we have freed ourselves from the yoke of European regulation. Only this weekend, we have seen that Tesco is going to take on fewer part-time people because of a directive from Brussels. Are we really going to deny our citizens growth because Brussels wants to put a further yoke on them?
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Is my hon. Friend aware that one of Tesco’s most profitable areas is the part of eastern Europe that is in the European Union?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Tesco, great company that it is, is also very popular in Thailand, whose application for membership of the European Union I am currently unaware of.
The Foreign Secretary made a final point that we would lose opportunities by going for a referendum now. Well, of course we would not; we would gain them. We are negotiating on the budget for the next few years on the basis of an absolute majority and a one-vote veto. This is not the intermediate budget. Our position is quite strong.
As I see it, we have a wonderfully united Conservative party, upset by the Liberal Democrats. I admire the Liberal Democrats. They are good, honest people, but, when push comes to shove, getting a proper relationship with the European Union is more important than the coalition. If the Liberal Democrats want to go into a general election saying, “Let’s have more rules from Brussels and from Mr Barroso”, let them try it. We shall see how many seats they win on that basis. It is for us Back Benchers to say to Her Majesty’s Government: “Stiffen your sinews, summon up the blood and imitate the action of a tiger, for that is how you should behave towards our European partners, not like Bagpuss.”
European Union (Amendment) Act 2008
Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
There is no doubt that it is in Britain’s national interest to do everything we can to ensure that the eurozone is stable and prosperous. It was therefore right for the European financial stabilisation mechanism, the EFSM, and the European financial stabilisation facility, the EFSF, to be created last May. In those extraordinary and dangerous circumstances, it was necessary to take swift action. More than 40% of Britain’s exports go to the eurozone. If this country is to secure a strong economic recovery, exports to the eurozone must play a vital role.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. I wonder if he is correct. The history of economic crises shows that the countries that devalue and default first are often the first to recover. By sticking with the euro, Europe has therefore made a mistake and lengthened the period of distress for Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the other economies.
Mr David
It is for other European Union member states to decide whether they wish to be part of the eurozone, and there is no doubting their commitment to it.
When the dust had settled after the fraught days in May 2010, moves were made to establish a more permanent stabilisation mechanism, facilitated by a treaty change to provide a stronger legal base. That mechanism will come into force after 2013 and will replace the EFSM and the EFSF.
I find the procedure before us rather strange, to say the least. When or if the European Union Bill, which is currently in the other place, reaches the statute book, there will be a change to the relevant constitutional procedure, as the Minister explained, and the procedure that we are using this evening will no longer apply. Instead, we will have what is essentially a post-decision procedure. Treaty changes will require a statement to be laid before Parliament on whether the decision falls within clause 4 of that Bill. I understand that the treaty change to establish the European stabilisation mechanism would not fall within clause 4, so would not trigger a referendum. However, it would require an Act of Parliament. The Government have said on at least three occasions, and have confirmed this evening, that they would seek the support of the House, using the procedures of the European Union Bill, by introducing primary legislation. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
“The mechanism is not a transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels, so it does not require a referendum, but it will require primary legislation, which will be introduced in due course.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 1 February 2011; c. 12.]
Given that commitment, I wondered why the Government were putting forward this motion at this time. The reason, of course, lies in section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which requires that when a decision under article 48(6) of the treaty on European Union is proposed, a Minister must introduce a motion and have it passed by both Houses of Parliament without amendment. That must happen before the Prime Minister can give his agreement to the adoption of a draft decision at the European Council. In other words, for the Prime Minister to be able to give Britain’s support to this draft proposal at the European Council meeting at the end of next week, it is necessary to secure the approval of Parliament.
I want to make a point about procedure. I welcome what the Minister said earlier on this matter, and I hope that the Prime Minister will adhere to that if there is even the smallest change to the proposed amendment. I hope that that is truly a cast-iron commitment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way a second time. It is very generous of him.
Tonight’s debate came about initially because of a suggestion by the European Scrutiny Committee, which could continue to recommend draft decisions for debate in the House before the Prime Minister went off to negotiate, and then we could have a Bill later. I do not really think we have lost anything.