European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Baron and William Cash

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

rose—

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Debate between John Baron and William Cash

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pat Glass]

No. I am sorry, but we have heard an awful lot from one side of the argument.

People in the Westminster bubble, particularly Conservative Members, are exercised about all those things, but given that I have no reason to believe that the people of North West Durham are any different from people across the country, they are simply not the top priorities of people working hard outside Parliament.

European Scrutiny Committee Report

Debate between John Baron and William Cash

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution to this discussion. In our report we reject the proposals from the Minister for Europe and the Foreign Secretary regarding a collective red card with a threshold. We believe that if the principle of veto is to be accepted, because it does not apply in the national interest, that should be a unilateral decision taken by an individual Parliament. The 1972 Act is based on the White Paper of 1971. That document, which created all the consequences that flowed from the Act, specifically stated that the veto must be retained in the national interest, not only for the sake of the individual nation states—the United Kingdom, in particular—but because to do otherwise would endanger the very fabric of the Community. It recognised that imposing a compression chamber on the whole of the European Union would lead to the kinds of problems that have recently emerged with the charter of fundamental rights, immigration questions and the rest.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this report and on the work of his Committee. Apart from what was suggested in the treaties in the early ’70s, we need better scrutiny not only because the organisation now called the EU has fundamentally changed since we first joined it, or because there has been a salami-slicing of our sovereignty under Governments of all parties in the past, but because the British electorate expect us to be scrutinising EU legislation in this place, as the proposals suggest?

[Mr Cash]

Indeed. These very radical proposals on changing Standing Orders and the whole mechanism and process would greatly improve our scrutiny. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution.

Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union

Debate between John Baron and William Cash

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

That is precisely right. It was never intended when we voted—and I voted at the time, with a reservation about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, which I was not allowed to debate—that we would be in this very position. That was in 1986 when I voted for the measure, but it was with that reservation.

To complete my point, where the comments from the City say “clarified”, I would say changed. We must change the rules, not merely clarify them, but we cannot do so because of QMV. That is the problem and it comes from the Single European Act.

[Mr Baron]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Cash]

Just once more.

[Mr Baron]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s defence that QMV cannot be extended to decisions regarding the City cannot be right, and their defence of the idea that the ECB cannot override non-eurozone members is at least highly questionable when it comes to the legal situation that my hon. Friend is highlighting, and that therefore there is a distinct danger?

[Mr Cash]

I would go further and say that the Council’s legal adviser knows exactly what the position is, as do the whole European Union and our own Government. The opinion is out there; I have read it and it is crystal clear. The reality is that there is absolutely no question about it.

I have great sympathy for the Minister and pay tribute to him. I will not go into the details, but it was because of him that we got the documents in the first place. He is a man of great integrity, and I think that he is in a very difficult position tonight, stuck between a rock and a hard place. I have to say that I do not believe that what he has told us really gives us the necessary guarantees and satisfaction. This is not about what we think, or about grandstanding or being difficult for its own sake; as he said at the beginning, this is in many respects—I would not say entirely—on a par with the matters on which we rebelled last week. We do not want to have to do this, but it is a matter of fact that we face this situation.

I have another commentary from City analysts stating that the concern is that the UK could

“still lose the ability to prevent a decision from being taken by the EBA to intervene in a UK bank directly under the EBA’s binding mediation powers.”

They make a similar point about the need for amendments to the treaties. The truth is that it would not be right for Members of Parliament not to register their votes against these proposals in the hope—like Mr Micawber—that something would turn up, because I am afraid that what this amounts to is complicity by our own House and our Government in the violation by the EU of its own laws and the avoiding of amending the treaties for reasons of mere expediency. Even if the EU does come up with something, I believe that it will be merely a fix to avoid revealing its real intentions and, of course, the real results, which will cause so much harm to the UK and the City of London. I blame the Labour party for much of this, as I warned of it several years ago.

The so-called remorseless logic of advocating a banking union is more of a remorseless shift away from our own national interests while the banking union moves the eurozone into an ever deeper and blacker hole with money, either invented or printed, pouring into it. That is a recipe for economic disaster.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between John Baron and William Cash

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I do indeed. A new rule is being imposed through the arrangements under this treaty which involves a kind of qualified majority voting for referendums whereby if member states do not have the requisite number of referendums in which they say that they do not want the treaty, they will simply be ignored. I hope that when it comes down to it and the Irish people have this explained to them, that will be a spur to their voting no, because people are being taken for a ride.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this emergency debate. Does he share my concern that with democracy having been suspended, in effect, in two countries, with a deepening democratic deficit across the eurozone as rules are bent, and with a eurozone fiscal compact that seems to undermine the EU institutions, we could fast be reaching a tipping point as regards the EU’s credibility and legitimacy?

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely. For those of us who have been critical of the European Union, but not of Europe, because we believe that we need stability and prosperity in Europe, my hon. Friend’s remarks are entirely justified. We are now facing the breaking of the rule of law through the imposition of European rules. It is an extraordinary paradox that the law should be used to break the principle of law itself.