EU Reform

Debate between Julian Lewis and William Cash

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir William Cash]

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s second point about the referendum; I have never disputed that. Far from it—it was an extremely good thing, although back then it was about a kind of Europe different from the one we are now experiencing.

I voted for the Single European Act, but I tabled an amendment to preserve the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. If that amendment had been allowed for debate, which it was not, it would have changed the whole nature of the matter. I was strongly supported by Enoch Powell, who understood that if we were to have a single market that did not work, the only way to retrieve the situation would be through some form of “notwithstanding” formula of the sort I have returned to over and again in subsequent years.

German economic policy is obsessed with fiscal discipline and large current account surpluses. Without the euro, currency adjustments would control Germany’s ability to export cheaply. German economic efficiency, combined with the single currency, allows for artificially cheap German exports at the expense of Mediterranean countries, which can deflate their currencies to offset cheap German goods, drawing money and jobs north and leaving the southern Governments unable to finance their deficits through economic growth.

German insistence on fiscal discipline is, as Wolfgang Munchau made clear in yesterday’s Financial Times, ideological and a deeply held response to the crisis of the 1930s. The result will be the destruction of the Mediterranean export economies while simultaneously deepening the damage through austerity on a massive scale. An attempt to impose German-style labour laws and fiscal discipline on those countries will fail and will not bring the required efficiency to compete with Germany.

The eurozone, which is dominated by Germany, is a disaster, as is increasingly recognised publicly by some of my Labour colleagues, and it seriously damages our economy. Furthermore, although we are told that consensus is the norm, the political consequences of the present treaties mean that, as of 1 November this year, the majority voting system in the EU Council of Ministers has been profoundly changed, subject only to a compromise transitional arrangement called the Ioannina compromise.

Germany and France with two small states can now effectively determine European decision making. The consensus is insufficiently transparent and is achieved primarily because the member states know the outcome of a given vote, which in any case does not sufficiently correspond to our concerns. In my European Scrutiny Committee, we have been very critical of how Coreper functions and the manner in which we are unable to achieve our objectives. We also have some critical things to say about UKRep.

Indeed, VoteWatch Europe has demonstrated that when the UK has voted between 2009 and 2012, it has done so in favour with the majority of member states in 90% of all votes. That strongly suggests that most European Commission proposals go through in practice. Therefore, the change in the voting system will tend to affect British interests increasingly adversely.

Professor Roland Vaubel of Mannheim university has examined the voting system and argued that the outcome is one of regulatory collusion, favouring Germany in particular. One must recognise that Germany makes a very substantial net contribution—£13 billion in 2013 compared with our £8.6 billion, although our contribution is rising. In return, Germany now acquires disproportionate advantages under the voting system and through its economic influence in Mitteleuropa.

In his speech in Berlin on 13 November, John Major reinvoked the concept of subsidiarity and he did so again on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday. He said that subsidiarity is the answer and that we must

“nail it down as a matter of European law”.

I do not know which planet John Major has been living on since Maastricht, but that is already a matter of EU law. When he promoted subsidiarity in the Maastricht treaty, I described it as a con trick. In my 30 years on the European Scrutiny Committee, I have never come across a single example of the direct application of subsidiarity. Even John Major now reports its failure, and his speech in Berlin was a catalogue of the failures of his European policy at Maastricht.

The European Union is not an abstract concept. It is about the daily lives of our voters, to whom we are directly accountable, across a vast range of matters. The list of chapters in the consolidated treaties sets out the immense impact that the European Union now has on us all.

The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I was elected Chairman in 2010, argued strongly and unanimously in November 2013 that the Government should reintroduce the veto. We were promised that the veto would never be abandoned when the White Paper was issued in 1971; that was the basis of our voluntary acceptance of the treaties by our Parliament in the passing of the European Communities Act 1972, yet so many other additional competences have been added since. That paper described the veto as being in our vital national interest, and stated that to abandon it would even endanger “the very fabric” of the European Community itself. Somebody out there understood where all this could lead, as it has.

The Prime Minister, to his credit, did veto the fiscal compact, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) will remember a conversation that we had with him shortly beforehand. My Committee proposed the application of the formula

“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”

to our Westminster legislation when it is in our national interest to do so. We could thereby override European laws and the European Court of Justice when necessary, as we can and should, under our own flexible constitutional arrangements unique to the United Kingdom among the 28 member states, thus regaining our right to govern ourselves in matters of vital national interest.

Those proposals were rejected by the Government, which shows how weak our negotiating stance really is in relation to the need to change fundamentally our relationship with the EU in the interests of our parliamentary democracy and the needs of our voters.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend has referred to the fact that Germany—the country on which this debate is focused—has a sort of parliamentary supremacy as a safeguard in its legislation, and that that is what he has tried to introduce for the United Kingdom? Can he tell us how well it works for Germany?

[Sir William Cash]

The short answer is that in the German constitution, in the preamble to the Basic Law of 1949, an assumption is built in for a united states of Europe. Unfortunately, therefore, a change in the German constitution would be required to enable the Karlsruhe court to override the provisions of the Basic Law. Therefore, Germany faces a real constitutional question that we do not, because we do not have a written constitution and we have the inherent right, within our own Parliament, to make the kind of adjustments that we want in this area.

To refuse to accept our Committee’s proposals—I say this with great respect to the Minister—is not merely walking away; it is not even engaging with the real problem, which is the dysfunctional structure created by successive treaties and the disadvantages that that creates for the United Kingdom.

All that demands a direct return to democratic accountability at Westminster—not the Maastricht-based co-decision with the European Parliament, which I opposed at the time, and not the manner in which the majority voting system and the so-called consensus have led to us being put at significant disadvantage from time to time in matters of our national interest. Those are increasingly becoming a matter of concern following the change in the voting system as of 1 November.

EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

Debate between Julian Lewis and William Cash

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

No, I do not. As a matter of fact, I have been very much personally involved in the Jubilee campaign, standing up for the rights of people in other countries who are being persecuted. Indeed, as the hon. Lady will know, I have also promoted the issue by forming the all-party group on water and sanitation in the third world. I stand absolutely 100% behind people’s rights in that regard. What worries me is when the whole thing is codified—as it is in the papers before us and the strategic plan—and interwoven with the universality matrix, and then buttressed by legal requirements. Therefore, when I hear the Minister saying, “Well, we will exercise the veto as and when it is appropriate”—if I can put it in generic terms—I simply do not believe that to be a realistic way of dealing with the issue.

This is another example of the European Union engaging in European creep on a monumental scale. I am not against the individual defence of people in relation to human rights questions, and there are many things that crop up in the European strategic framework and action plan that I would strongly support in an individual context. What worries me is the universality, not only because of the panoramic view that is taken of all these matters, but because of the panoramic way in which it will be applied in practice, headed by the European representative. This is essentially a practical question.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is it my hon. Friend’s assertion that, while he has no objection to a democratic country expressing strong views about abuses of human rights in other countries, democracies or otherwise, his real objection is that the European Union is seeking to take on this role without constituting a democracy in its own right?

[Mr Cash]

That is exactly the point. This is almost a jurisprudential question. It is not about fancy philosophy; it is about how we make decisions relating to individual, practical instances. My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. It is difficult to imagine that we will be able to make a choice, once the machinery is moving forwards. I shall give the House an instance from among the wide range of activities in the many pages of the strategic framework and action plan that has been adopted by the EU Council. By engaging in this proposal, we are effectively endorsing European creep. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister says that that will not happen, and that we will have the opportunity to exercise the veto, but I just do not see this as a practical way of working.

The Council has adopted the measure, and we have demanded this debate on the matter for very good reasons. We want to examine exactly what the measure contains. There simply is not enough time, in the one and a half hours allotted to us, to go through the incredibly complex questions that arise from the matter or to deal with the interaction of the decisions and the impact that they will have on human rights law in this country or in others.

I shall give the House a flavour of what I am talking about. Anyone listening to or reading the debate might like to look at the range of matters in the action plan. I mentioned that it is divided into outcomes, actions, timings and responsibilities. It is divided into seven chapters, and it sets out a variety of external policy activities. This has been agreed by all member states. Seven headings cover 36 policy areas and 97 potential actions, and that deals with the matter only in the generic sense. When we reduce this to individual cases, we are effectively saying that the EU will have a supervisory responsibility, subject only to the caveat that we will be able to exercise the veto, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I do not see that happening, however, once the machinery has been set up.

This is very much like the External Action Service. Indeed, it is very much like the EU itself. I said in 1992, or whenever it was—it seems a very long time ago now—that once the Maastricht treaty had gone through, once the European governmental system had been created with all the qualified majority voting that went with it, once we had created the mechanism and endowed it with resources, and once we had increased and implemented its legislative capacities and functions, we would have constructed an enormous creature that was incapable of being restrained. That is exactly what has happened, with disastrous consequences.

To come back to the main issue, let me provide a few examples. In the first place, the action plan refers to

“Human rights and democracy throughout EU policy”.

For those who are interested, this is taken from a Library note dated 9 July. It is also referred to in the papers before us and it has been looked at by the European Scrutiny Committee. The plan refers to the need to

“Incorporate human rights in all Impact Assessment”,

and to

“Insert human rights in Impact Assessment, as and when it is carried out for legislative and non-legislative proposals, implementing measures and trade agreements that have significant economic, social and environmental impacts, or define future policies.”

I would like to know what is not included in that, and what the opportunity would be for any restraint on the use of such provisions in the strategic plan.

The plan also refers to

“Genuine partnership with civil society”,

and that

“Heads of EU Delegations, Heads of Mission of EU Member States, heads of civilian missions and operation commanders shall work closely with human rights NGOs active in the countries of their posting.”

I would be the first to support NGOs in their individual activities, but this is a mandatory requirement, going beyond what I would describe as voluntary activity. Then there is the need to

“Present EU performance in meeting the objectives of its human rights strategy in the annual report on human rights and democracy in the world.”

I would be on the side of all those campaigners when it comes to individual human rights matters. I see in his place the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who knows that I campaigned with him on issues relating to the Chagos islanders. Going further back, I was also involved with the issue of aboriginal rights in Canada. I could provide a whole list to show that I have been as much at the forefront as anyone else when it comes to campaigning against abuses of human rights. Where I differ, and why I object to these arrangements, is in respect of this overarching determination to get away from specific campaigns into this idea of universality, whereby I think we miss the wood for the trees.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Debate between Julian Lewis and William Cash

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If I am to follow the good example of those engaging in genuine debate, I should refer to previous comments made tonight. Two of the speeches that have been much praised so far—quite rightly, in my view—were those from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). They were praised not only because of their excellent delivery, but—one would like to think—substantially because of their comment and analysis. If I try to marry those two speeches, I come out with two propositions: intervention should be for humanitarian purposes only, and strict limits should be imposed on how we become militarily involved.

As will emerge as I develop my argument, I believe that the most likely result of such an approach—if it is what hon. Members want—would be not dissimilar to what was set out by the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That might surprise some hon. Members. I shall come back to that point in a moment, but I wish people to think about it a little. It is one thing to praise a speech about having limited objectives in a war, but it is quite another to proceed as if there will not be consequences of limiting those objectives in the way that we should rightly limit them.

In the early 1990s, when I was not in the House, I looked on in horror at what was happening in Bosnia, and I was particularly ashamed of the fact that our Foreign Secretary of the day, when asked why we would not go to the help of the moderate Bosnian Muslims and would not even allow them to have the weapons with which to defend themselves, replied that we did not wish to create a “level killing field”. I thought that that was a disgraceful statement.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, disgraceful.

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend agrees that it was disgraceful.

I looked on with horror and impotence while the world and Britain stood by. Then, partly for that reason, in 1998, during my first term in the House, I was one of just three Conservative Members—if I remember correctly, the others were the now Lord Cormack and the late Michael Colvin—who actually called for military intervention against Milosevic in relation to Kosovo a year before the intervention actually happened. I therefore have a track record of supporting humanitarian intervention. I say that because I have grave reservations about what we are doing now. I will—very reluctantly—support the motion in the Lobby tonight, but I want hon. Members to realise the consequences that are likely to follow.

In such a situation, we need to ask ourselves four questions: who should intervene, how should the intervention be carried out, who should pay for it and what will be the result? Who should intervene? The answer is: those who are willing and strong enough to do so. How should it be done? Here we get to the nub of the matter. We can intervene in such a conflict by using what has been called air power but is actually the use of precision weapons from the sea and the air. We can intervene using such power only, which is what we say we are doing, or by introducing troops. If we confine ourselves to using precision weapons from sea platforms or the air, we should not expect Colonel Gaddafi to disappear.

The question of who should pay is terribly important. Throughout our years of opposition, we said that Labour Governments had let defence fall too far down our list of priorities. However, I have not noticed us proposing to increase the proportion of GDP we spend on defence. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is here. I have asked the Foreign Secretary this question twice, and he has brushed me off twice. Will this campaign be paid for out of the existing core defence budget, or will it be met by additional funds from the Treasury reserve? We have to know.

Finally, what will be the outcome? It will be entirely dependent on whether ground troops get involved. We have ruled out ground troops. If the Arab League wishes to see Gaddafi removed, it may have to supply ground troops, but we will not do so. We are left with a situation in which we are making a limited intervention to stop people being massacred. However, let us not fool ourselves into thinking that this will result in the removal of Colonel Gaddafi. Unless there is a coup or ground troop involvement by Arab states, Colonel Gaddafi will probably survive. He will lose control of part of the area, and we will have a long-term commitment to look after the remainder of Libya. For that, payment must be found.

European Union Bill

Debate between Julian Lewis and William Cash

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that. I agree with the sentiment; the problem is the practice. The difficulty is not only the tsunami of laws: attitudes within the Supreme Court, particularly since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, have so enhanced its independence that, in conjunction with the arguments it is beginning to present, very serious questions are raised. It was the same with the Bill of Rights of 1688—it was not an Act, but it is regarded as one of the central instruments of our constitution—when Parliament said that it was going to put its foot down and set down a marker that Parliament was sovereign. That is what I am saying in my amendments.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is surely correct in saying that there is always what the Business Secretary would perhaps call the nuclear option of withdrawing completely. Is not one of the reasons why we, as a sovereign Parliament, are feeling more and more repressed by this sort of judicial activist legislation that things are so often put forward as if they were absolute rights whereas they should be viewed as qualified rights? That is why a common-sense Parliament would say that someone had abrogated some of their rights by bad behaviour, for example, but these courts say that the rights are absolute so that no matter how badly people behave, they cannot, for example, be deported.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I think all Members will want to take into account. As a lawyer myself—there are many other lawyers in the Chamber—I know that there always exists within the framework of the judicial or court system the adversarial nature of arguments based on words. One reason I came into this House after a fairly lengthy career in the law was that having had so much exposure to parliamentary legislation and its impact on people, I was conscious of the fact that however clever or adroit a lawyer might be in expressing his opinion in court or in his practice, the impact of law on the people who receive it—the voters—was quite a different matter. The common sense mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) provides a salutary reminder of the necessity to remember that we in this House are Members of Parliament. We are legislators; we are not lawyers. We are seeking to apply principles that will enable this country’s people to be better governed.

Unfortunately, much of our legislation emanates from the European Union, for example, on issues such as food labelling. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) has just proposed a private Member’s Bill to deal with that issue, but his Bill has no chance of becoming law unless we disapply the European element and pass it in this House. That is the problem, and it is, in part, what the supremacy of Parliament debate is all about.