Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

There are many flaws in the system. The peoples of Europe—although one can generalise too much in this respect—are asking more and more questions as the system fails to deliver, in particular on the economic front. Mass unemployment is causing great hardship in many countries and the EU is failing to deliver.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

I think I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene once already. No? In that case, please do.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. He is hitting the most important point here. Does he accept that this is not just an academic debate about sovereignty? This is an issue that goes to the very core of social cohesion. If people feel they cannot change those who make decisions, we will have all kinds of trouble and tensions on our streets. That is the core of the issue. Democratic institutions are important for the wellbeing of society.

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree and that is very well put. It is terribly important that there is an element of democratic accountability. If there is not, we will alienate sections of society and issues such as unemployment will not be properly addressed. How are people going to voice their opinion without moving to the extremes of the political divide, and feeding that extremism because they do not feel they can be democratically represented within the existing structures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. I raised the matter when a former representative from UKRep spoke to the Committee a few years ago. I said, as I had suggested to the coalition Government, “What would happen if we gave notice that in five years we would withdraw from the CFP, restore the 200-mile and 50% limits and start to manage fish stocks properly, in the interests of our own fishing industry, monitoring every boat and catch sensibly, as happens in Norway?” He said, “You’d be expelled from the EU,”, so there is no possibility of that happening.

If the Government put that in their negotiations, however, they might be a bit more persuasive. I have a list of things I would have in the negotiations—sadly, the Government have not followed it—and getting rid of the CFP is one of them. We have the largest fishing grounds and used to have the most successful fishing industry in the EU, but it has been devastated by overfishing and the appalling discarding of bycatches. The point is that, if we made a real change, we would apparently be thrown out, so the substantial changes I want would not be acceptable.

Even yesterday, people were talking about the common agricultural policy—another nonsensical policy that has cost us dear—under which we make massive net contributions to the EU. Every country ought to manage its own agriculture. Some, like the Norwegians, would choose to subsidise it for strategic reasons, as would be perfectly acceptable. We could do the same and choose either the current subsidy regime or a different pattern of subsidies. Each country should do its own thing. One of the nonsenses is that some countries are paid not to grow food. I was in Lithuania a couple of years ago with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. It used to be self-sufficient in food, but now thousands of acres are lying fallow because it is paid not to grow food. That is nonsense, and it is all to do with the CAP.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. In Northern Ireland, a big issue is what would happen to farming subsidies were we to leave the EU, but is not the point that farming subsidies are better tailored to the needs of individual countries than is a common policy that often fails to meet the needs of farmers in our countries?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we withdrew, we could eliminate the net loss of our contribution to the budget—some say £19 billion, others £14 billion, but either way it is in the billions—and still subsidise regional and other policies, and tailor them to our national and regional needs.

I turn now to the sham of so-called “social Europe”. It is used as a lever to persuade social democratic and socialist parties to say yes to the European Union, but when it comes to the crunch—this would not necessarily impress Conservative Members and certainly not Labour Members, I hope—the EU always finds in favour of employers. Free movement is not about being benign; it is about bidding down wages, ensuring that wages are kept down and profits kept high. It is part of the neo-liberal package of measures that is being driven by the European Union.

In the case of Greece and other southern European countries that have had bail-outs, one of the conditions for bail-out is to put a brake on collective bargaining: “You’ve got to calm down your employees, especially in the public sector. We’re not going to give you the bail-out unless you cut back on collective bargaining.” That is hardly “social Europe”. What about the rights supposedly involved in the charter of fundamental rights? Then, of course, another condition of bail-out is forced privatisations, and we have seen fire sales of public assets in these countries. All these things have damaged social welfare in those countries.

The biggest problem of all has been mass unemployment, falling national output and falling living standards. Greece provides the most extreme example, but other countries have suffered, too. Greece has seen its living standards cut by 25%, and its unemployment is at 25%—50% among young people. Across southern Europe as a whole, youth unemployment stands at 40%. It is nonsense—it does not work economically. The idea that is all about “social Europe” and that it is beneficial to workers is, I think, complete nonsense and simply not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The Poles, the French, the Hungarians and many others also fought alongside us.

What actually happened in 1706-07 was that the two Parliaments were combined; it was not a takeover of one Parliament by another. I entirely respect the clear pride and positive English nationalism that we have heard from some Conservative Members today. That is a positive thing; as long as nationalism is based on pride in and love for one’s country it is always to be welcomed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone on his pride in declaring that “we are the people of England”, but we are not the people of England; we are the people of Scotland. We are the sovereign people of Scotland, in whom sovereignty over our nation is and always will be vested. For Scotland, sovereignty does not reside in this place, and it does not reside in those of us who have been sent to serve in this place. It resides for ever in those who have sent us to serve here.

I am genuinely interested in the concept that the institution of Parliament is ultimately sovereign, even over the people. Perhaps someone who speaks later can tell me who decided that that should be the case, and who gave them the right to decide that. I suspect the answer will be that it was the people who agreed that Parliament should be sovereign, in which case it is the people who retain the right to change that decision.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this debate is not about the sovereignty of this place but about the sovereignty of the people who elect us to this place? Therefore, if we become pawns, the sovereignty of the people he is talking about—the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales—is diminished.

[Peter Grant]

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s comment, but I have to draw his attention to the wording of the motion. It does not mention the sovereignty of the people; it talks about the “importance of parliamentary sovereignty”—[Hon. Members: “They are the same thing.”] The two are most definitely not the same thing. If Parliament is sovereign, does it have the legal and constitutional right to pass any legislation, however morally repugnant it might be, with the people’s only recourse being to wait five years and then vote for different Members of Parliament? That is not a version of parliamentary sovereignty that I recognise, and it is not a version of parliamentary sovereignty that the people of Scotland recognise or will ever be prepared to accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

More than 70 years ago, our great island nation stood alone against the tyranny of the jackboot and the lash. Our freedom, our democracy and our sovereignty were in mortal peril. Led by Winston Churchill, we did not flinch in protecting them. Hundreds of thousands of our brave men and women—whether in uniform or not—gave their lives to defend our island and everything we stand for. Because of their sacrifice, we have a daunting responsibility to respect what they fought and died for. I must therefore ask: why are we so prepared to hand the destiny of our proud island nation to an unaccountable bureaucracy with barely a murmur? How dare we? How dare we? How would anyone dare to go down that road? I simply cannot understand it.

We have a duty to those who fought and died to stand up for our country and to ensure her sovereignty is kept intact. This sham of a renegotiation does not do that, and we all know it. Sadly, one treaty after another has undermined our will to resist. We have already handed over the UK’s head, torso, arms and legs. Now we propose to surrender our very soul. And to whom? The answer is a group of unelected Commissioners who sit in their multimillion-pound glass towers, surrounded by all the trappings of cars, secretaries and expenses, pontificating over lobster and Chablis about plans to create a wonderful new centralised state—a federal Europe—where uniformity is pressed on an unwilling electorate by guile, persuasion or threat. Democracy my foot!

[Sammy Wilson]

Is that not the central point about the EU’s unwillingness to devolve sovereignty to individuals—to voters—and Parliaments? The EU cannot afford it. If it is going to centralise functions right across Europe, forcing states and individuals into arrangements they do not want, sovereignty is the last thing it is going to tolerate.

[Richard Drax]

I could not have said it better, and I will expand on that very point a little later in my speech.

Who will lose out? It is the voters—the man and woman in the street—whom Opposition Members claim to represent, and who will increasingly rail against an authority over which they have no control and no say. Meanwhile, our political elite march on, deaf to the cries of those who elected them.

This madness will continue, at least in the short term—Germany has too much to lose. To control the experiment further, closer integration is not only necessary but inevitable, with more and more power going to the centre, whatever our Prime Minister says to the contrary.

We are told we are safe from all this. We are not. I am sure that the Prime Minister, who is an intelligent man, knows that in his heart. I have watched, appalled and dismayed, as we have ceded powers to the EU in an insidious and gradual erosion of our sovereignty. There was a time when all the laws affecting the people of this country were made in this House by directly elected Members like us. As we know, that is no longer the case. As we have been dragged kicking and screaming down this truly undemocratic path, we have been assured by one Prime Minister after another, “Don’t worry. We have a veto over this, and a veto over that. We have a red card we can wave.” Now, apparently, to block laws we do not like, we have to persuade at least 15 EU members to agree with us. Will they hell!

To me, sovereignty means the ability to govern ourselves free from outside interference. We are not free to do that today. For heaven’s sake, we have to ask 27 countries for permission to change our welfare rules. Meanwhile, our borders remain dangerously porous, permanently open to EU citizens and horribly vulnerable to infiltration by those who would do us harm. What staggers me is how we wandered into this trap.

I have always been suspicious when political parties agree, and with the notable exception of a few Members, our future relationship with the EU is a very good case in point. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I see first-hand the raft of legislation that comes in boatloads from across the channel. It interferes in every single facet of our lives.

UK’s Relationship with the EU

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

There is certainly still work to be done on the element of the text dealing with the relationship between euro-ins and euro-outs, as well as on other aspects of the text. On my hon. Friend’s initial comment, while we hope it is possible to get a deal in February, the Prime Minister’s position remains that the substance of any agreement will determine the timing of the referendum. If it were to take longer than February to get the right deal, then so be it.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

How can the Minister continue to argue that the proposals meet the Prime Minister’s promise that he wishes to restore sovereignty to this Parliament, when, to exercise a veto over laws we do not like or to put a brake on benefits to immigrants, we will still have to go cap in hand to other European Parliaments or the European Commission? Does he not see that this is the kind of deal that even Del Boy would have been embarrassed to be associated with?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman has always been, quite openly, an opponent of British membership of the European Union. If the United Kingdom were to have a unilateral veto on everything, that would have to be the case for every other member state as well. We would certainly find some of the trading and single market measures that bring huge benefit to the people of Northern Ireland at risk from a veto by a more protectionist-minded Government elsewhere in Europe.

European Union Referendum Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

First of all, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say what an absolute pleasure it is to see you in the Chair and to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon? The only note of sadness I would sound is that you are no longer with us on these Benches. Your company was always a delight.

I am very pleased to be able to support the Bill. Indeed, I have campaigned in favour of a referendum on Europe for a long time. I speak as a former board member of People’s Pledge, the multi-party campaign for an EU referendum, and as a member of Labour for a Referendum. Both campaigns have succeeded, albeit a little late in the day in the case of the latter. Labour for a Referendum has included EU supporters—Europhiles—as well as sceptics like me. Recent voter analysis has concluded, sadly, that had we persuaded our Labour leaders to support a referendum earlier, we would have won an extra eight seats in the recent general election and prevented the Conservatives from having an overall majority. That would have made this Parliament rather different from the one that we shall have for the next five years, so it was a significant decision not to support a referendum before the election.

I am pleased that my party leadership has now had a change of heart and is supporting the referendum. A few years ago, a mini-referendum was held in my constituency on whether local people wished to be granted an EU referendum. There was a 2:1 vote in favour. The wishes of my constituents are now being reflected on both sides of the House, and I am pleased about that.

I have a track record on EU matters going back to the 1975 Common Market referendum, when I was chair of the Luton Vote No campaign and the Bedfordshire agent for the no vote. I have not changed my view since then. Perhaps that just demonstrates rigidity of mind, but I believe that events since then have strengthened my view that the European Union is not a sound organisation—certainly not for Britain. Interestingly, the Bedfordshire agent for the yes vote was the late Sir Trevor Skeet, then the Conservative MP for Bedford. When I met Sir Trevor a few years ago and reminded him of his previous position, he was horribly embarrassed because he had since become a strong Eurosceptic who would no longer have wished to vote yes.

In 1975, however, the Conservatives were overwhelmingly pro-Common Market while Labour had a majority against it. It has been suggested that the Eurosceptics were just a small number of extreme left-wingers, but I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we had a massive majority at the special conference on the Common Market that I attended in 1975. A great majority of Labour MPs were in favour of a no vote. It was not just a small group of left-wingers—I happen to be on the left myself—who took a Eurosceptic view; people on the right of the party did so as well.

Labour Eurosceptics have included many distinguished former Members of this House, including Hugh Gaitskell, Michael Foot, Barbara Castle, Peter Shore and Tony Benn. Indeed, I last met Denis Healey in the late 1990s at a meeting that had been called to oppose Britain’s membership of the euro. I hope, therefore, that there will be no personal disparagement during the campaign on the referendum, and that the debate will focus on the arguments. I hope that those who take a critical view of the EU will not be abused, and that their arguments will be listened to. I have set out my own views in print, and I shall be writing and speaking on this matter much more in the coming months.

In simple terms, I believe that the EU is about economics, and the economics are failing. Low growth, mass unemployment and falling living standards—in swathes of the eurozone in particular—are evidence of the EU’s failure. But the overwhelming argument against our membership of the EU is about democracy. Democracy must mean elected national Parliaments making the final decision on how their people are governed and how they choose to be governed. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) referred to a dictatorship. It might not be a dictatorship, but it is certainly an authoritarian bureaucracy. We want our laws to be made following debate in this House, not by bureaucrats in Brussels. That is of fundamental importance.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I support all the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. He mentions the importance of democratic decisions, so is he concerned about the increase in the spending limits for referendum expenditure in the Bill and the danger that that could undermine true democratic debate and put the decision in the hands of the big spenders?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Spending limits are crucial and I remember the vast amounts of Euroslush poured into Britain to win the yes vote. Every corner shop in my constituency had a steel noticeboard cemented into the pavement with pictures of Harold Wilson on it saying “Vote Yes.” That money did not come out of the pockets of ordinary people—well, it did indirectly—but it came though big business or from the European Union.

I have a final point to make, repeating what I suggested in business questions last Thursday. I suggested that all parties ought to have a free vote for all Members of this House on whether they accept the terms that come back from Brussels when the Prime Minister has finished his negotiating. I hope that my party will observe that and I hope that the Government will too. It was probably my fault that the row broke out over the weekend, because clearly some Conservative Members were rather taken with my suggestion that there should be a free vote for all Members. I shall be voting freely and I hope that my Whips will understand when the time comes. Harold Wilson wisely allowed a free vote on his renegotiated terms of membership of the Common Market before the referendum and I hope that all parties will follow that wise example so that we not only have a free debate in which we discuss the issues and do not abuse each other but are free to vote with our consciences, as we should be in this Parliament.

European Council

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We are at an early stage of those discussions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear when he wrote for the Financial Times just before Christmas, he wants to start a debate about how we should manage these matters better in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) knows, this subject causes concerns, particularly among Interior Ministers and Social Security Ministers in a number of different European countries. The conversations are being taken forward by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and, of course, the Prime Minister. We are at an early stage, but we will be taking the discussions forward over the next 12 months.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Conclusion 36 indicates that the Council is calling for further discussions on tax evasion, aggressive tax planning, base erosion and so on. Does that include changes in EU regulations which currently permit workers posted to the UK for less than two years to avoid paying tax here and to opt to pay tax in their own country while still being eligible for benefits in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lidington]

I think the appropriate Minister will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the particular issue he mentions about posted workers. The key point about the conclusion on tax is that it is part of taking forward the G8 agenda on tax transparency that the Prime Minister led at the Enniskillen summit last year.

Persecution of Christians

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great joy to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is important because of the scale of the problem, because of the individual suffering that people experience across the world, and because this issue is actually sanctioned by the Governments of many countries, demanding a response from the UK Government.

The scale of the problem has been outlined very well by previous speakers. Some 200 million Christians are under severe risk of persecution, with many thousands killed every year and ethnically cleansed from their towns and homeland. Some 50,000 Christians have been cleared from the city of Homs in Syria during the civil war. In Eritrea people are being imprisoned on a regular basis. In Sudan before it was partitioned, over a 30-year period 2 million Christians were killed by the regime. That is the scale of the problem.

It goes on even today. Within the last month, hundreds of people, from Nigeria to Eritrea to Kazakhstan to China, have been arrested and put in prison simply because of their faith, and when they go into prison they are denied due process. They are denied access to lawyers. They are sometimes even denied knowledge of the charges facing them. They can languish in prison for a long time and in horrible conditions.

Any other overseas problem on that scale would have been a priority for the Foreign Office, yet the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman attempted to widen this topic, rather than to zone in on the real issue, which is that a particular group of people are being persecuted.

As has been pointed out, this is not only happening in Muslim countries. From Morocco to Pakistan, Christians in Muslim countries are under threat, but it happens elsewhere too.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do from my parliamentary postbag, of the persecution of Baha’is, particularly in Iran. Does he agree that regardless of whether those persecuted are Baha’is, Christians or whatever, a message must come out from a plurality of voices that the persecution of people on the basis of their faith is a very un-Islamic thing to do?

[Sammy Wilson]

Absolutely, and I think that is the point we need to be making in the House. Persecution of people of whatever faith by people of whatever faith is wrong.

We can go beyond the Islamic countries to Korea, where 70,000 Christians languish in prison, some of them in the most horrible conditions. I do not want to start telling lots of individual stories, but one struck me in particular. We found in Northern Ireland during the troubles that people can get numbed by numbers—they come to be seen as just statistics, rather than as highlighting the real suffering behind them—but 6,000 Christians are languishing in prison No. 15 in North Korea. They are regularly brought out on a Sunday, and two people are selected and paraded in front of the rest of their fellow Christians, stabbed with pointed bamboos and called on to renounce their faith because then the torture will stop. Many of them, of course, finish up being murdered because they will not renounce their faith. Leaving aside the huge numbers, that is the kind of horror and individual human suffering we are talking about.

As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, when the Nazis carried out such acts in concentration camps we pursued the prison guards and those responsible to the ends of the earth, to prosecute them and to make sure they were brought to justice, yet it seems there is not the same response when it comes to the persecution of Christians. That is not just to do with the Government, of course. It is to do with the media, too. I thought it was striking that when 80 Christians were blown up at the beginning of November as they worshiped in Pakistan, the BBC found it so important that it came below the Emmy awards in the news agenda. That seems to be the level of seriousness that is attached to such issues.

One of the reasons for that sort of response is that, in many instances, such persecution is actually sponsored, sanctioned and encouraged by the Governments of the countries concerned. We have already heard the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calling for the destruction of all Christian churches on the peninsula. Human Rights Watch has said that the most dangerous place for a person to be a Christian today is Pakistan, and that much of that persecution is sanctioned by the Government there. A lot of the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is fomented by official sources—and so it goes on around the world. When we point to and specify the persecution of Christians, perhaps we are actually pointing the finger at Governments who, possibly for political reasons, we sometimes need as allies, and at Governments who, for commercial reasons, we need as trade partners. If that is the reason we are not prepared to be specific about this persecution, it is a great shame on the Government of our country.

[Mr MacNeil]

Although we have our concerns about persecution, perhaps we should be highlighting good practice where it occurs. There are indeed Islamic countries that are tolerant, and perhaps we should hold up the examples of Senegal, Bangladesh and Turkey, where there is a lot more tolerance compared with the societies we are concentrating on. We should make it clear that there are examples of Islamic states in which we would all be quite happy to live.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am not so sure about the human rights situation in the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

What can and should be done? I know this is a debate about what the Government should do, but the media have a responsibility. Where such unpleasant things are happening, they should be given proper coverage that is communicated to the wider world. Baroness Warsi said in Georgetown last month that it is important that we get an international coalition against such abuses, and that includes not just Governments but journalists, judges and all the people who can bring to the notice of the world the abuses taking place, do something about them, and deal with those engaged in them.

As has been mentioned, we give aid to many of these countries. I do not accept the argument that, by denying aid to them, we in some way disadvantage the people who live there. If that were the case, we would not impose sanctions anywhere, because there will always be people who are disadvantaged by sanctions. If the aid is going to a Government who are engaged in and supporting these practices, it is particularly easy to make it clear that no further aid will be given. As has been said, sometimes this is not a question of physical persecution but of economic or educational discrimination. When we think about how we spend our aid money, perhaps it should be targeted at persecuted groups.

We have talked about the ability of the Commonwealth to put pressure on the Governments of countries across the world over which we have some influence, where these abuses take place. This requires a concerted effort. It requires us not to be politically correct, but to have the courage to say, “This is happening to a particular group of people. It will not be tolerated, and there will be things which this Government will do.”

I have asked many questions about this. I have been told that the Government are aware of the situation and that they are monitoring it, looking into it and pressing the matter. We need more than that when people’s lives are being put at risk in this way.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist party for choosing this important topic for debate. I come from a Muslim background, and my father was an imam. When I saw that the topic was “Persecution of Christians in the 21st century”, I knew that it was absolutely right and proper to have a debate on that subject. It is important for the world to realise that persecution goes on. I was speaking to a good friend of mine, the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, about this, and he told me that the persecution of Christians was taking place in more than 130 of the 190 countries in the world at the moment. That is completely and utterly unacceptable; it is a very sad state of affairs.

When I was thinking about which area to focus on in the debate, it was difficult for me to decide because the persecution is so widespread. When it is taking place in more than 130 countries, which country should I pick? I narrowed it down and chose a country that I know well. I was born in Pakistan and had the great privilege, pleasure and honour of serving as an adviser to the former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. She wanted reform, but she lost her life. She wanted a progressive Pakistan, but the radicalisation elements and certain others did not agree.

That is why, when I saw the topic for the debate, I had to choose Pakistan as the subject of my speech. The persecution of Christians is a major problem there, and I want to focus on the blasphemy laws. I recently read an article published by the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement, an organisation that covers the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and abroad, which stated:

“The Blasphemy law is at the root of much suffering and persecution of Christians in Pakistan. The use and abuse of this law is the fundamental issue underpinning discrimination and open violence against Christians and local churches”.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman can obviously speak from experience in his own country. Does he accept that when Muslims stand up for Christians in Pakistan, they too put themselves at risk? When the governor of Punjab stood up for and visited a Christian girl in jail, he ended up being murdered by his own bodyguard.

[Rehman Chishti]

I know more than many others about that issue. I lost my good friend Benazir Bhutto to radicalisation. She was two weeks away from winning an election, after which things could have changed. We had discussed reforming the blasphemy laws, but she was never able to do that. That is the problem in Pakistan, and the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it very well. The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, had raised the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian. She is a 46-year-old mother of six children, and she is still in prison in Pakistan. She was supposed to be pardoned by the President in 2010, but owing to pressure from the radical right, she was never freed. That was totally unacceptable. Pope Benedict said that what was happening to her was unacceptable and called for her release. However, she is still in prison in Pakistan and facing the death penalty. People in Pakistan stand up for her, but they know what the dangers are.

However, this does not mean that the Government of Pakistan cannot stand up and do the right thing by repealing a bad law. That bad law is the blasphemy law, and the abuse of that law must be dealt with. It is used to settle disputes between one neighbour and another, under sections that were brought in between 1980 and 1986 by General Zia, who was himself a radical. He was an extremist, and he introduced a section that stated that anyone who defamed the Prophet had to be killed. That is totally unacceptable. Those sections of the blasphemy law that were brought in during the Zia era are bad law and they have to go. The Pakistan Government could and should do that, but, as has been mentioned, Governments themselves face certain pressures. They can stand up, as the Minister with responsibility for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian, did. He said that this law was wrong, but what happened to him? He was killed. What happened to Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab? He said it was wrong and he was killed. So we have to understand the difficulties for Governments in changing these laws, but they have to change them.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

It is important to make the point that this is not only a vote on something that is important to the people in all regions and parts of the United Kingdom and will be welcomed by them; it is also something that other countries are looking to us to give a lead on. The Foreign Secretary pointed out that there have been a number of national plebiscites and votes on European issues in many countries, sometimes two or three times on the same issue, but the fact is that people are crying out for a say. As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, this is the big issue of the day in Europe: political legitimacy, democracy and accountability.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on from his point about the Labour party’s approach to the issue, will he agree that the defence that we cannot have a referendum until there has been substantial constitutional change is really very thin, given that we have had Maastricht, the Single European Act and the Lisbon treaty? Surely there has been enough substantial change in our relationship with Europe to give people a say now.

European Union

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great joy to sum up in what has been a timely debate, touching on an issue that concerns millions of people across the United Kingdom, not only because their attention has been focused on last weekend’s events in Europe, but because of the continuing drift that we have seen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said, on everything from foreign policy and macro-economic policy right down to the basic things that affect people’s lives every day, people are more and more concerned about the impact that Europe has on them.

A number of matters have been discussed in a good debate. Those who have opposed the motion have raised a number of issues, which I would like to go through quickly. The first is the damage done to the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister’s stance. This was epitomised by the comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) as shadow Minister when she said that the Prime Minister had left us on the outer fringes of the EU and that it was bizarre for us to wish to commend him for that.

[Jim Shannon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, but I want to develop this point first.

There is nothing new in this. The chattering classes have all come together to condemn the Prime Minister for standing up for Britain and for our interests in Europe. There is nothing new in those who see the European project being attacked using that tactic in debates such as this. In fact, a leader of the Liberal Democrats said, as revealed by Hansard:

“There will be a second-tier Europe”—[Official Report, 24 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 34.]

in which we will be led into “isolation”. People may wonder how on earth that can be, when the Liberal Democrat leader has not been in the House since these events happened. How can he have anything on record in Hansard? Of course, I quoted not the present Liberal Democrat leader but the Liberal Democrat leader from 1992—nearly 20 years ago—when we had exactly the same situation. They have not even learned new lines, for goodness’ sake. If they are going to criticise someone for undermining the European project, one would have thought that they would learn to find some new arguments.

People have said that we are isolated in the world. It is interesting to note that when Hillary Clinton commented, she said that she was not concerned at all about what the Prime Minister did in Europe this weekend. She was more concerned—and America is more concerned—about whether this will be an effective way of dealing with the crisis of the euro. As a number of hon. Members—including even the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) —have pointed out, even the markets agree that this has not been a good deal. How on earth can we be isolated and left alone on the edges of Europe on this issue if we find that all those looking at the effectiveness of the deal have found it wanting?

The second argument is that Britain will be left alone and other nations in Europe will not support us. Hon. Members, including again the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and even the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), have pointed out that this is not the end of the matter. Many of those hailed as supporting the deal are already beginning to have second thoughts. The list is endless: Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Finland and Czechoslovakia. Ironically, even one of the candidates who might well be the next Prime Minister of France has said that he would undo what has happened. I think that, far from being alone, we will find this issue being revisited by others. That requires a word of caution: if it is to be revisited, it is important for the Prime Minister to take the same stance again.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of everything he has so soundly said, it would be extremely unwise for our own Government to make any attempt to endorse the arrangement, given its uncertainty and apparent instability?

[Sammy Wilson]

Absolutely. As other nations start to look at the implications of the deal and see the essentially undemocratic nature of it, they will ask themselves whether they are prepared to put their destiny in the hands of the European Commission.

I find it strange that the party that has opposed the Government’s austerity measures in the United Kingdom has taken the view that it is better to hand the ability to impose those measures to the unelected bureaucrats in Europe. At least the Prime Minister can be held to account in this place every Wednesday and the Chancellor can be held to account here, too. We will not be able to hold European bureaucrats to account if we give them this power. That is one reason why I find the attitude of Labour Members very strange.

The third argument that has been made is that we have gained nothing and lost everything. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East put it succinctly: it was bizarre of us to support the Prime Minister, she said, because decisions will be made that will affect us, and we will not even be in the room when they are discussed; it has failed to stop any changes in the financial system; and it is bad for Britain, and bad for jobs. Therefore, she and the Labour party oppose what the Prime Minister has done. With such an argument, she should have found it easy to say, “We want to be in the room, we want to safeguard financial institutions, and we want to create jobs, so we will support the deal.” But no matter how many times those in the Labour party have been asked the question, they have not been able to say that they would have supported the deal. Perhaps she will now tell us that the Labour party will support the deal.

[Emma Reynolds]

Nothing was agreed on Thursday that led to a signing of a treaty change. We would have to see what was in the treaty change to decide whether we would sign up to it.

[Sammy Wilson]

This is the problem—if that is the case, why would those in the Labour party not support a deal? Why will they not say that they would also have vetoed a deal? If they would not have vetoed it, they are saying that they would support something that they believe is bad for jobs. That is the logic of their position.

The other argument is that the Prime Minister has taken this action because he is afraid of his Back Benchers. If anyone is afraid of his Back Benchers, it is the leader of the Liberal party. On Friday, he was saying that he agreed the terms, the tactics and the approach. By Sunday he had changed his mind. What changed his mind? I suspect that his Back Benchers changed his mind. It is a bit rich to say that the Prime Minister is in hock to his Back Benchers. Equally, I suspect that the Labour party has taken the attitude it has adopted because it is afraid of the public. It knows that the vast majority of the public—57%—support what the Prime Minister has done. I would rather have a Prime Minister who is cognisant of the British people’s views and then responds to those views. For that reason, we commend him in our motion.

I am sure that we will have plenty of opportunities to disagree with the Government, and times when we criticise the Prime Minister. This is not the end of the matter. The Prime Minister will have to show again the backbone that he showed last Friday, and we will look for him to do it.

Middle East and North Africa

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is not possible to release those assets under the current UN resolutions—of course we have looked at this matter, but all the advice that we have been given is that it is not possible to do that. Other countries have received the same advice and, certainly, all other European countries are in the same position. It is very important that we stay within the UN resolutions and retain the moral authority of operating within international law, even though that is inconvenient in some respects and requires us to do some things differently from how we might wish. So that is a higher priority than finding a way around the UN resolutions. If it is possible to change them at any stage, we would be ready to do so.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that events in Syria have the potential to be even more destabilising than events in Libya given the cynical attempt to stir up problems on the border with Israel? Will he therefore outline to us the additional sanctions on Syria that he is considering with the EU partners mentioned in the statement?

[Mr Hague]

The sanctions so far cover President Assad and 22 other individuals in terms of asset freezes and travel bans. Additional sanctions would involve the designation of further individuals involved in repression and violence in Syria and of commercial organisations, so the sanctions on Syria would be wider spread. I do not want to pretend to the hon. Gentleman that such sanctions will change the entire situation in Syria. They are a demonstration of our strong view rather than something that will transform the situation there. We must recognise our limited leverage in Syria, but we are exercising the leverage that we have.

European Union Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order, but the matter to which he has just referred—whether an application for the Chiltern Hundreds has been made—is, I am afraid, not a matter for me. The matter has been addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the execution of his responsibilities, and this is one of those occasions on which it is right for me to communicate the facts of the situation, but not to wallow in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, if I can put it that way.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. “Erskine May” makes it quite clear that someone should apply for an office under the Crown. Should I, as the Member for East Antrim, in a fit of despair when I see who will replace Gerry Adams, express publicly the view that I wished that I was not a Member of a House that contained such a person, would the Chancellor take that as an indication that I should no longer be a Member of this House and therefore appoint me to an office of the Crown? That seems to be the implication of the ruling that you have made.

[Mr Speaker]

Once again—I fear that I am being repetitive, but it is necessary for me to be so—let me say that I have made the factual and legal position clear. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, and it seems to me that the matter that he has raised—a matter relating to what could or could not now ensue—is essentially a hypothetical matter upon which it is neither necessary nor possible for a ruling to be made this evening. I believe that the position is clear: the disqualification has happened. If there are Members who are dissatisfied with the procedure—a very senior Member and others have indicated some level of dissatisfaction—it is perfectly open to them further to pursue the matter through other quarters, on other occasions, but I do not think that there is profit in dwelling further on them this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said from a sedentary position.

[Sammy Wilson]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You are absolutely correct to say that, whatever the future might be, things could be different. Can you confirm to the House now, given the shabby way in which this has been handled in order to avoid the embarrassment of Sinn Fein, that it is now no longer necessary for a Member to apply for an office under the Crown if they wish to resign?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is no, I am not confirming that at all. What I have done, and what I am doing again, is reporting the facts of the situation and the appointment that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which I was, perfectly courteously, notified.

Gaza Flotilla

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The argument that I make is that, whatever the arguments about the blockade’s legality, it is unwise—it does not achieve its objective. In a practical world, it is not the right thing for Israel to do. No doubt, the Government of Israel would make a different legal argument from that of my hon. Friend: they maintain that the blockade is lawful because they are acting in their own self-defence. Therefore, the thing that they must be persuaded of is that the blockade does not serve their security interests and that a change of policy is urgently required.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I note the Foreign Secretary’s demand for free and unfettered access to Gaza but, in the absence of a blockade of shipping into Gaza, how does he believe that the people of Israel can be protected from the unprovoked assaults by rockets and other armaments that are being imported into Gaza by the supporters of Hamas terrorists?

[Mr Hague]

That is why I have referred to the international work that needs to take place to try to give assurance that such importation of arms cannot take place while humanitarian and economic aid, and general economic trade, is going on. However, I stress again that it does not serve the interests of Israel’s security to maintain the current position, which is putting more power into the hands of Hamas and driving the people of Gaza into its arms. That does not serve the security of Israel.