United Kingdom and China
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
To move that this House takes note of the recent developments in the relationship between the United Kingdom and China.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I first express my appreciation to the House and its authorities for the opportunity to promote the debate—and, indeed, to all noble Lords who are here today. It is also a very pleasant duty to extend a warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, both of whom will be gracing the debate with their maiden speeches. On behalf of us all, I wish them nothing but fulfilment during their time in this place. I also declare my interest as a board member of Conservative Friends of the Chinese, but I do not wish to turn this into a partisan debate. It has been too long since we had the chance to debate these hugely important issues.
China is the world’s most populous country, with one-fifth of all humanity’s children, the second biggest economy on the planet and the largest standing army. We keep talking about Chinas as an emerging nation, but China is not emerging: she has already arrived, an ever-strengthening wind in our world. My own interest in China dates from my doctoral studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in the 1970s when China was in the throes of the Maoist madness that killed, murdered and even starved to death tens of millions of Chinese. China today is unrecognisable as that delta of misery which flooded into the Yellow Sea. The first thing I do, therefore, is offer my unstinting congratulations to the people and the Government of China for the enormous strides that they have taken since then.
Britain’s relations with China are long-standing, although they have not always been good. Our imperial past has left many scars; the Chinese still remember. However, both our worlds have moved on since those inauspicious days. Our economic ties have expanded enormously. In the past three years, British exports to China have doubled, although they are still less than those of France, way behind Germany and only a squeak more than Italy. Our trade deficit with China is far larger than those of our European neighbours. On the other hand, our financial services industry is a world leader. The plans to turn London into a major hub for renminbi dealing are truly exciting. What draws so much attention is the flow of Chinese investment into Britain. It includes investment into Heathrow and Manchester airports, our new nuclear power plants, the Lloyds building, the Royal Albert Dock, Thames Water, good old Weetabix, our next-generation telephone and broadband systems, and even London’s traditional black cabs. It is an arrangement of mutual advantage: they send us cuddly pandas and, in return, we send them Boris.
If we intend to strengthen our economic links with China, as we should, we need to give attention to many areas. I will highlight three. The first is that of visas. In the past three years, the Government have been making it easier for Chinese businessmen and tourists to come to Britain. All the required paperwork is now available in Mandarin, making the process of getting a visa much less onerous. George Osborne, in his remarkable trip to Beijing last month, promised even further improvements. We must, however, put those promises into action. Seven times as many Chinese visitors go to France as to Britain. There is more to be done.
My second point relates to our air links. We are going to have to work a lot harder to make sure we are competitive with the rest of Europe. We wring our hands about whether it should be Boris Island, Heathrow’s third runway, Stansted or Birmingham—yet, while we argue rather than implement, the Chinese just get on with it and increasingly fly to mainland Europe. We have been awful at our planning of airports policy. We need to get much better, and very quickly.
Thirdly, I will say a few words about education—that vital bridge not just between businesses but between cultures. We are by far the most popular destination in Europe for Chinese students and the third most popular in the world after the United States and Australia, yet we do far too little in return. At state-school level, only a tiny fraction of pupils are offered any education in Mandarin. The situation is improving, but far too slowly. At university level, we have only around 400 graduates a year who get any training in Chinese. The situation at postgraduate level is even more challenging. The British Association for Chinese Studies reports that, in the past four years, Britain has produced only 13 doctoral students covering all Asian studies—all Asian studies, not just Chinese studies. Noble Lords might be interested to know that the comparable figure for Celtic studies is 19. As delighted as I am that we rejoice in our Celtic roots, I think we need to dig rather deeper than that.
There are those who are fearful of our growing contacts. They are worried about the extent of Chinese hacking and industrial espionage, the theft of intellectual property, the inadequacies of Chinese commercial law, and the corruption that is endemic. There is no point in pretending that everything is as it should be. We still need to do business with not only our wallets but our eyes open.
Our relations with China stretch far wider than trade and commerce. The continued progress of China is key to the stability of the rest of the world, and she faces huge domestic challenges. China has the most rapidly ageing population in the world. Her workforce is about to start shrinking rapidly. The failures of the one-child policy are coming home to roost. It is said of China that she will be old before she is rich. Like so much of Asia, China is desperately short of energy and raw materials. However, her biggest challenge is perhaps the shortage of water. Much of it is polluted, unsuitable not simply for human use but even for agriculture and industry. I will give one statistic. The water table in Beijing has dropped 300 metres—a full 1,000 feet—since the 1970s. All this matters to us because China is far too large a part of our world to be ignored.
When China sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. We talk glibly about China being monolithic—one country politically, economically and geographically—but that can be hugely misleading. China is confronted by immense internal challenges, and many observers believe that the most significant story of the next 20 years will not be the story of her inexorable rise but of her growing domestic problems. There will be rifts between the generations, the regions, the religions, the haves and have-nots, the literally wets and dries, between opposing ideas and conflicting needs.
The country’s interior is still one of the most backward parts of the planet. Some 400 million Chinese are desperately impoverished and have gained nothing from the great economic awakening. It is said that a rising tide will float every boat, but what happens when the water runs out? There are also ongoing and deep-seated concerns about human rights—of which I suspect we will hear more in this debate.
Of course, there is a new leadership in Beijing. From the speeches of Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, it is clear that they understand the magnitude of the challenge they face. We should wish them well, for China at discord could be no friend of the West, let alone a partner in our future prosperity. This is where I want to leave my personal mark on this debate. Although in many eyes the rise of China is a threat to the West, I argue that the greatest threat comes not from China’s expansion but from the possibility of her implosion. That would cast a shadow over the world so intense that it would propel us into an ice age that would make our recent economic troubles seem like an outing on an iceberg. To borrow a phrase from Henry Kissinger’s recent book on China,
“no issue preoccupies Chinese leaders more than the preservation of national unity”.
To understand that point is to understand much about current Chinese policy.
If we criticise Chinese inflexibility towards Tibet, for instance, we should at least understand their genuine fear that unrest in Tibet will be followed by upheaval in Xixiang and other border regions, and then perhaps throughout the entire country. To some, it is an extraordinary concept that China could be a vulnerable member of the international community. It is a particularly odd idea when we see China becoming more assertive. She has border disputes with Japan, India, Vietnam and the Philippines. Her army is mighty and she is flexing her muscles. American academics talk of a new cold war as the United States pivots away from Europe and towards Asia, and as China increasingly joins forces with Russia. The seeds for future conflict exist; they could all too easily be sown.
Yet, inevitably, and happily, there is another side to all this. China has shown little appetite for external aggression. Many of these border issues are left over from the centuries of humiliation, and many of the disputes are about rocks and oil and, in the long tradition of Asian politics, about face. Very often the Chinese have found an accommodation. For instance, many feared that Hong Kong would be destroyed after it was handed back, but Beijing has been true to its word and handled our former colony rather like a precious Ming vase. We should not blind ourselves or be complacent; we must realise that the growth of China will inevitably create the need for change. Through that, it will create also the potential for conflict. She is already developing a more assertive foreign policy; she will insist on being involved in a dialogue over the future not just of border regions such as North Korea and Pakistan but of places further afield, such as Syria—as we have seen—the wider Middle East and Africa. The tectonic plates of our world are shifting.
But this is not a zero-sum game in which they win and we lose. We have our differences, but we also both have an overriding interest in stability. We need to develop a strategy of engagement with China—engagement, not appeasement—that is capable of recognising China’s legitimate requirements, making them compatible with our own and finding common purpose in the search for stability. We need to show an open hand rather than a narrow mind.
Britain has a huge amount to offer China in this process of change. It is not simply the economic stuff but our goods and financial services, our expertise in health care and our great creativity. We even have our history to offer. Britain was an exception to the rule that industrial revolution is inevitably followed by political revolution. All across Europe, crowns tumbled and thrones were toppled while, in Britain, we kept our traditions and our political system remained largely intact. China would like to learn from that example. It is perhaps ironic that the reflections of Edmund Burke on the proper order of things are probably read more widely in China than they are in Britain.
There is no need to be overawed on account of our much smaller size. Of course, Beijing had a brilliant Olympics; but, when it came to our turn, it was not just Mo Farah who showed the rest of the world a clean pair of heels; it was our entire country. It was Britain at her best.
Our traditions, our culture, our great British brand, our willingness to be open for business, the recent increase in British diplomatic staff in China, our top-level government visits—all of these, and many more, put us in an exceptional position to form fruitful partnerships with China. There is more to do, of course, but, if a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, the well of happiness starts being filled with the first drop of understanding.
The red eye of the digital dragon is staring at me, so I must wind up. I apologise for trying to cover hundreds of years of history and billions of pounds’ worth of interests in a single gallop. It has been a privilege of introduce this debate; now it will be my pleasure to listen and to learn.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I am delighted and honoured that the debate has been so fruitful; it has overflowed with experience, insight and enthusiasm. I thank every Member of this House who participated. My noble friend Lord Green’s summing up has been most helpful; he has been for so long at the sharp end of things and his time at the coalface has been hugely productive. He deserves his retirement but we shall miss him. I must once again congratulate my noble friends Lord Whitby and Lady Neville-Rolfe who made their first speeches in this House. But my friendly neighbourhood Whip has whispered in my ear—a loud Chinese whisper—that we are out of time. I must apologise, therefore, for being unable to refer to other individual contributions. I hope that noble Lords will understand and forgive me for that. The debate has been a credit to this House. Its messages were put quite superbly and came across loud and clear. The Chinese sometimes say that Britain is a small island, a long way away, which makes a lot of noise. It means at least that they hear us, and that sounds like a pretty good place to start—and also to stop. I beg to move.
Syria and the Middle East
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, it is a privilege but also a little daunting to be the Back-Bench tail-end charlie in this debate, particularly as I lack the colourful upbringing of the noble Lord, Lord Luce.
The first thing to say is that doing nothing in Syria is simply not an option—not with so many dead and with so much at stake. We have a humanitarian interest in seeking a solution and we have a very great self-interest in a solution. We also have a responsibility. We played a direct role in so many of the emerging problems of the region, where the frontiers were drawn with a remarkably unbending ruler in London and Paris. We used to pursue a policy of divide and rule and, in recent years under Prime Minister Blair, we seem to have pursued a policy of meddle and muddle. We armed Saddam Hussain; then we deposed him. We even armed Osama bin Laden, when he was fighting the Soviets. We were great friends once with the Iranians and then we became great enemies. So it went on.
We have a pretty awful track record of picking winners, and we have no more prospect of being able to pick a winner from among the maelstrom of opposition groups in Syria than monkeys have of writing Shakespeare. That is why arming rebels on our own or as part of an exclusively Western coalition is hopeless: blind optimism of an order worthy of Mr Blair. We need a broader coalition with vision broad enough to recognise that although many of us distance ourselves from the former Prime Minister’s fixation with remodelling the Middle East, much of the rest of the world sees no such distinction and simply sees an old imperialist country still up to its wicked tricks, as my noble friend Lord Bates so colourfully illustrated earlier.
We keep drawing lines in the sand—and what do we find when we cross them? Nothing but more sand. Yet past failures—and there have been so many—do not mean that we should do nothing. If there is no solution to be found by entering the lottery of Syrian opposition groups, neither is there any solution in simply washing our hands.
Syria is not an isolated case. This debate is right to set it in the context of the wider Middle East, which inevitably brings us to the issue of Israel and Palestine. Here, I take a slightly different view from the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Anderson. That conflict is connected in as much as it helps to ignite extremism throughout the Middle East and hugely inflames the distrust of the West.
Future generations will look in bewilderment at how we allowed that situation to continue. Let me take just one small example: the Gaza Strip, a territory so small that my noble friend the Minister and I could walk around it in a day. It is 25 miles long and, for most of its length, only three and a half miles wide. We could make every inhabitant rich beyond their wildest dreams for a fraction of the treasure that we have wasted in trying to resolve this problem. However, the situation still grows worse, deliberately made worse by men of evil intent.
On the other side of that equation, Israel is our friend—we support it. However, we watch as Palestinians are beaten and kicked from their homes to enable Israeli settlers illegally to occupy further stretches of Palestinian territory. I read that the new American Secretary of State is optimistic about moving forward on a settlement on that issue, yet I also read that hopes for a two-state settlement are rapidly fading. We shall see—nothing is simple.
We have a right to be involved in such issues. After all, we had a role in causing the problems in the first place. Therefore, while again supporting the absolute and inherent right of Israel to security and peace, can my noble friend in her response assure us that if Israel were to retreat from a two-state to a one-state solution, the British Government would deem it absurd and unacceptable if that solution was sought on any other basis than one man, one vote?
If we are to push for stability and moderation in the Middle East, we must expect our friends in Israel to listen to us, too. We have a right to be involved in such issues, so while once again supporting that inherent right of Israel, we must also expect common sense and balance from her. We will need to talk, not only to Israel but to our other friends in the Middle East and to those who are not our friends—those we dislike and those we openly distrust. We must talk not only to our friends in the Gulf states and elsewhere, to Arab League nations, to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Russia and China—there is such a long list of them—but also to the extremists, and even to some who we regard as terrorists; even, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested, to Assad himself. After all, if we can talk to the Taliban, is anyone off limits?
In these exceptionally challenging circumstances, the Prime Minister is doing an exceptional job. He is clearly cautious about sending arms to Syria, and should remain so. He is increasing our humanitarian aid, travelling far and wide in search of common ground, and I am sure that he will keep a very close eye on developments in Iran. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested in his fascinating remarks, it is time to bring Russia and China in from the cold. I am sure that the Prime Minister will take great note of what the noble Lord said. Most of all, I trust that the Prime Minister will look at security at home in the sobering knowledge that although past Governments’ policy in the Middle East was built on the overriding objective of making this country safe, so far it appears to have failed.
There is so much to say and so little time in which to say it, and I do not want to stretch the patience of the House. I will, therefore, make a closing plea. Syria must not be more of the same. It should mark a new and more mature understanding of what we in this country might achieve. There is no exclusively western solution to this crisis. There might be a regional solution, but that would require the support and understanding of a variety of powers from around the world—a multipolar solution in a multipolar world. In that we might just find not only a formidable and daunting challenge but a liberating opportunity.
European Union: Recent Developments
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Owen, with many of whose remarks I agreed—which, I suspect, may be more than will be said by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, when he follows my remarks.
This is a bit like one of those interminable European summits where everything has been said, but not everybody has said it, so we carry on. So much has happened and yet so little has changed since we last debated these issues. We are still where we are, with the future of Europe nailed firmly to a snowflake. We were warned just last week by Monsieur Hollande that there is no possibility of change—that repatriation of powers simply is not going to happen and commitments are for life. I am not sure what experience he has as a relationship counsellor, but I think that there may be a better way.
I spoke recently to a Foreign Minister of an eastern European country. I was trying to explain to him that many British people feel disaffected because they have never been asked directly if we were willing to give up sovereignty. I must have lost my presence of mind, because I quoted Ted Heath. He said at the time that we joined the Common Market:
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears”,
he added,
“I need hardly say are completely unjustified”.
That is what I tried to explain to my eastern European colleague: that far too many people in Britain feel disengaged from the European Union and misled about it. His response was that we were clearly stupid—yes, stupid. “Of course it involves giving up sovereignty”, he said. “All you had to do was look at what was going on in Europe and you would have known”. I dare say that he was right. I suspect that he found it easier than we British would to belong to a club where all his membership fees were being paid by others. However, he was entirely wrong to say that there was simply no alternative, because to say that is to deny history, democracy and close our eyes to what is happening. The Prime Minister is of course right to seek a new settlement and to search for a new way.
When Brussels came forward with an inflation-busting budget, the Prime Minister had a duty to object. How can we turn to our sick, our disabled, our elderly, our unemployed and say, “We hear your pain, we understand your needs, but it is more important to feed the European system”? It is a system that has two Parliaments, three Presidents and hundreds of officials who earn more than our Prime Minister; whose budget is so inept and corrupt that, for the 18th year, the European Court of Auditors has refused to sanction it. Why cannot the EU clean up its act? Why do fishermen still pour fish back into the sea? Why are farmers paid for not producing food? Why are officials paid more, more and more?
The whole mess is dressed up as nothing more than the growing pains of a great ideal. Brussels is growing fat on a diet of those excuses. There is growing dissatisfaction—long-term dissatisfaction—with that great ideal. There was a time when 62% came out to vote throughout Europe in European elections. On the previous occasion, in 2009, it was down to 43%. Most people simply could not be bothered, no matter how much money Brussels poured into information campaigns about its great ideal.
I do not want to bandy statistics around, because statistics are too often used in these debates as doctors use anaesthetic, but in the past five years, there is an extraordinary fact which I find rather compelling. Almost every elected Government who have come up for re-election in the European Union have been thrown out—in France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and, of course, this country. The people have demanded that Europe’s elected Governments take responsibility. That is entirely right and proper. What about Europe’s unelected Government in Brussels? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether a single member of that Government has been fired, forced to take a pay cut or to accept any measure of responsibility for what has been going on. They keep promising change. They say, “Yes, it will be different soon”, but their solemn undertakings are a bit like a Picasso; they seem to change every time you look at them.
David Cameron is right, spectacularly right, to say that this must stop. He is right to say that there must be a referendum, that people must be put back in control of this process and that there must be a rebalancing of rights. The possibilities for a different direction brilliantly expounded by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, deserve great consideration.
However, there comes a point when every great ideal has to face the test of reality: not academic records, not aspirations, not truisms but reality. If we may, let us spend a moment reflecting on the reality that is Greece. People seem to be running away from discussing Greece, but that is the reality of part of that great ideal: where sick people need to fill deep pockets with cash to guarantee hospital treatment; where children faint in classrooms because of a lack of nourishment; where elderly women queue for food at soup kitchens in two overcoats to protect them against the cold. There is now no hope. The suicide rate was once the lowest in Europe, but has now doubled, in a country where the Orthodox Church refuses funeral rights to those who take their own lives. We are watching a country die of despair.
Ah, but the Greeks brought it on themselves did they not? Well, no, they did not—not ordinary Greeks. Those who are suffering most are not the powerful, the rich or the elite who made those decisions. You know that they will always find ways to protect themselves. Those who are suffering are the poorest, the powerless, the old, the young and the sick—those who should be given special consideration and care. That is the reality of the European Union today, and unless David Cameron and others can persuade them that there is a better, more flexible and more democratic way, then I fear that the reality could be even worse tomorrow.
EU: United Kingdom
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warsi
I thank the noble Lord for the question but I disagree with the statement he makes; the Government are not aligning themselves with the far right in Europe.
Lord Dobbs
When my noble friend next has the opportunity, will she take one of her German colleagues to Athens, or indeed to any large city in Greece, to one of its hospitals where patients are not getting medical treatment? Or will she take them to one of its schools, where young children are fainting because of lack of nourishment? Or, even better, will she take them to the ports and airports of Greece where a huge queue of young, ambitious, successful people are desperate to get out of that poor country? Does she accept they are not getting the peace and prosperity they were promised but are instead seeing the death of democracy? There are some people on this side of the House who still take democracy as being a very important asset.
Baroness Warsi
I agree with the noble Lord, democratic legitimacy within the EU is absolutely crucial. A number of polls have shown a fall in contentment about being close to the decision-making within Europe. The noble Lord raises important points and this is why we must continue to play our role within Europe, continue to reform Europe and continue to make it relevant for today’s economies.
Private Military and Security Companies
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warsi
The Government feel that the best way to proceed in this area is to work on a voluntary system in which the trade organisations and the private security companies working in this area are involved. This is a matter which relates to the private security companies of many countries, and it is therefore important that we have an international standard against which companies can be audited.
Lord Dobbs
Is my noble friend aware that British companies operating in this difficult area have a high regard internationally? Can she give us an indication of how much money the British Government spend on those private security companies in the course of a year?
Baroness Warsi
I can, my Lords. The specific spend by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on centrally awarded contracts to private security companies was approximately £47 million in 2009-10, £43 million in 2010-11 and £47 million in the current year.
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [HL]
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, this afternoon’s debate has been thoroughly stimulating—and we still have a way to go—as was our debate on Monday. Perhaps I might be forgiven for spending just a few minutes trying to draw some threads linking Monday’s debate to what we are discussing today.
Monday’s debate was thoroughly thoughtful, and two contributions in particular stuck in my mind. The first was the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, who sadly is not in his place, that in real terms more has already been spent on bailing out the eurozone than was spent on reparations and reconstruction after the two world wars. If that is so—and I look forward to seeing the figures—it is a statistic and a reality that should give us all pause for very considerable thought.
There was also an emphatic contribution on Monday from the noble Lord, Lord Judd—who sadly is not in his place either, but his words echo on—in which he spoke of the “ethical commitment” to Europe based on lessons he drew from his experiences of World War II. He put his points with eloquence and great passion. The speeches of both noble Lords got me thinking about the historical perspective that they raised. Can history teach us any lessons, even though the crisis that we are witnessing and going through today is very different?
Ardent supporters of the European Union base their very genuine beliefs on an ethical view. The EU, they say, is the best way to avoid the extremism and intolerant nationalism that led us down the road to disaster in the 1930s. It is a very genuine view but there is a danger of taking too narrow a view of ethics and events. The ethical side of the debate in the 1930s—and it was a very black and white debate then, too—was claimed by the anti-war lobby, the appeasers.
When Neville Chamberlain flew back from Munich waving his little piece of paper, he was applauded by archbishops and moralists, and summoned by the King from Heston Aerodrome to Buckingham Palace, where he was brought out on to the balcony to accept the cheers of tens of thousands of grateful people. In October 1938, Neville Chamberlain was the most praised, honoured and seemed to be the most ethical politician of his day. It did not make him right of course. Indeed his strong and rigid ethical views, which he held most sincerely, ended up blinding him, and leading him and the entire world astray.
The point I want to make is simply that while I have enormous respect for the sincerity of those who support the EU as being the only alternative, I do not believe that they are right. I hope that does not make me swivel-eyed. For instance, in October 1938, Winston Churchill was hugely unpopular. The Conservative Party was planning to deselect him in 1938—not something that we talk about a lot nowadays but it is absolutely true. He was derided as a swivel-eyed warmonger and a man of the past. We heard similar claims from one or two noble Lords in Monday’s debate and mutterings about political reactionaries who apparently lurk at home wearing union jack waistcoats. I frankly thought that was a pity in what was otherwise a fine debate.
Then I began to think about what the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said and what happened after World War I and World War II. After World War I, we punished Germany with reparations and crippling austerity. The economic consequences were disastrous; the political consequences far worse. We should not be so naive as to think that such appalling outcomes are impossible today. Democracy is a delicate flower and in many parts of Europe the soils are thin.
Towards the end of World War II, a similar discussion about the future of Europe was held. In February 1945, the great leaders, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, gathered at Yalta to map out the shape of post-war Europe. That summit too came desperately close to repeating the follies of 1919. Stalin wanted to tear the industrial heart of Germany, pack it up to the last bolt and rivet, and ship it back to the Soviet Union. He wanted to reduce Germany to a rural backwater. Roosevelt was of much the same mind and wanted to break up the odious German state into a number of powerless and pathetic provinces. However, the swivel-eyed, warmongering Churchill had a different vision. He was outnumbered and isolated at Yalta but he remembered the terrible mistakes of 1919 and fought furiously. Although Yalta was largely a disaster for the West, he was able to prevent Germany from being ripped apart and dismembered; although it was of course divided. It was a delicious irony that it was that old warmonger—the man who had stood out against the ethical orthodoxies of his day—who saved Germany and with it, eventually, free Europe.
Many of you will know the history of that time better than me, so I will come quickly to the conclusions that I want to reach and the lessons that I think we can draw. First, ethical values are not held simply by one side of this argument. Secondly, there is nothing to be gained but sorrows from pushing states too far down the road of blind austerity and crippling reparations. In 1919, and indeed in 1945, we talked of Germany; today we talk of Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy, but, for the moment, particularly of Greece. The ESM is a sticking plaster in that solution but it is not by any means a solution in itself. We all know that and I support it for what it is. However, I fear that sticking plaster that it is, there are few, if any, sticking places left. If—and, I suspect, when—Greece is forced out of the euro, whatever else happens we must not turn our back on the Greek people, any more than we turned our back on the German people in 1945. Otherwise, that fuse of extremism that we have heard so much about could all too easily be lit once again.
I would gently encourage—not lecture, I hope, but encourage—all the authorities in Europe, and particularly those in Germany, to remember the lessons of the post-Versailles period rather than naively insisting that all financial obligations should be met, no matter what. In the period between the wars, that policy proved to be no more than whistling into the teeth of the gathering storm, and the tune has got no better since.
I believe that the eurozone is set on a downward slope and cannot survive in its present form. There will be more pain but my final conclusion is yet one of hope. We have all been through worse than this, or at least our fathers have, and found the imagination not simply to survive but to flourish once again. Instead of sticking stubbornly to the premises and prejudices on which the creation of the eurozone was based, let us look forward to a different, more flexible, more creative and more tolerant Europe; a less bureaucratic, less centralised and less overmuscled Europe; a Europe that is so much more than a eurozone. Whether the ESM will play any part in meeting that hope, I know not. I can only keep my fingers crossed and my savings in sterling.
EU: Recent Developments
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, it has been a true pleasure to listen to this debate. It has been insightful, it has filled me with fascination, and I have heard arguments—intellectual, hypothetical and institutional—that go way beyond my pay grade. I want to follow up on some of the remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made in her very insightful speech about what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, called in his opening remarks the “noble country” of Greece.
Greece is much beloved by me. I have many friends there. One of them was telling me recently about what a dire state it is in. She said, “It is so dire that the Government have even increased the taxation on swimming pools”. I said, “Surely that has helped”, and she said, “Not very much because there are in the whole of Greece only 137 swimming pools known to the tax authorities”. I said, “Surely there must be some industry that is growing in Greece”, and she said, “Only one: camouflage netting”.
I refer to this silly story to illustrate a very serious point. Greek accounting practices have always been colourful and creative, offering more optimism than insight. It is the way they do things; it is the way they have always done things. What we are witnessing in Greece today is not just a tragedy but a travesty. It was folly to invite Greece to join the eurozone. The Greeks should never have been let in—and that is not with hindsight; that was said at the time. But common sense at that time was buried to obliteration by the imperial dream. I think it was President Mitterand who said that it was inconceivable that we could have Europe without the birthplace of democracy, Greece, as a member.
So Greece was let in and now that birthplace of democracy has been reduced to what? We do not know for sure at the moment. We all harbour fears for that once great and proud nation, but we can be sure that it is reduced—humbled—by those it took to be its friends. When the crisis broke, these friends said it was impossible for Greece to leave the eurozone; it could not be done. A little later they said it was inconceivable that Greece could leave the eurozone; it could not be thought. Then they said it was wholly unlikely, but now we know that in every corner they are preparing for precisely that possibility.
The reduction of that great country of Greece has been a very degrading spectacle. The wise men who run these things came up with a stunning plan. Greece needed to be leaner, to run faster, so they decided to cut off a leg. When that did not work, they said they must continue with the same policy, and cut off another leg. It is Pythonesque in its stupidity, and so the tragedy goes on.
There is no prospect of Greece achieving what is demanded of it. It may have been the glorious birthplace of democracy but today even its democracy is in doubt. Its Prime Minister is unelected and its previous Prime Minister was cast aside for his temerity in suggesting that he should ask the people for their views. The forces of the extreme left and extreme right are gathering pace. Now every party in Greece is expected to sign a binding undertaking that, no matter what the result of any future election, it will do and will continue to do what it is being forced to do by others. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, talked about the situation being horribly like the folly of repatriation imposed upon Germany after the peace treaty of 1919. Once more, almost 100 years later, Europe is a continent of lions led by donkeys. Those leaders who object to what is going, like our own Prime Minister, are told that they have no right to object.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, talked about the recession in Greece, which has been going on for five years. Its GDP was down 6 per cent last year and 7 per cent in the past quarter. It is getting worse, not better. Unemployment in Greece is 21 per cent and rising rapidly. Yet still the wise men who run these things want to hack and to cut deeper. Greece is a limbless body lying on the ground. It can no longer get to its feet, let alone run.
Will Greece default? It has already defaulted. We are simply arguing about the details. Will the eurozone break up? In my view, it will almost certainly—if not completely, partially at least. Greece will become adrift, like ballast from a plummeting balloon. We are witnessing a catastrophic failure of leadership in Europe. We sit here in our comfortable Chamber discussing plans and possibilities, and doing our best. But it would be better if we were on the streets of Athens, Patras and Thessaloniki, so that we could see what damage is being done by such plans when they go wrong.
In his opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Howell asked that we should look forward and how we should go forward. We have had many different suggestions. My noble friend Lord Dykes has been trying to offer me champagne over the past few days. I fear that instead of the champagne I am likely to get nothing but the ice bucket, because I listened to him and he talked of the temporary problems of the eurozone. There is nothing temporary about these problems. I much prefer—strangely for me and I hope that I will not embarrass him by saying so—the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. He talked about the need for a fundamental review of the way in which the eurozone is conducted. I agree with many of his analyses, if not all his conclusions. Above all, we must remember to re-establish the democratic legitimacy which must lie at the heart of any Europe in the future.
In his opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Howell said that we are members of the EU “by choice”. I think that I can see the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, almost fulminating at that idea. But let us cherish the words “by choice”. We must continue to ensure that we remain in Europe by choice—the new and, we hope, fundamentally reformed Europe, which we have heard about and perhaps will be capable of building. We must not be part of a European enterprise simply because we are told, like the Greeks are being told, that there is no alternative and that we have no choice.
I fear for the future. I am not complacent. I fear that Greece will leave the eurozone with all the calamity that that will entail, but I fear even more that Greece will not leave the eurozone and that we will be stuck with a far greater calamity. But whatever that future will be, it must be driven not by egos or imperial arrogance but by popular consent. For that, at some point sooner rather than later, whether we succeed in refashioning Europe or not, we must seek the views of the British people in a referendum.
European Union Bill
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has tested our memories, and I ask noble Lords to test theirs. I did not intervene in Committee because to do so might have delayed the Whitsun Recess. Never have I received such a warm reception for a speech that I did not make.
I have been reluctant to intervene on this Bill because it has so much detail. I have been prompted to change my mind by two things. First of all, sitting here last week listening to proceedings for many hours, I heard language that I did not think did the argument justice. I heard Members of another place called “rather nerdy people” simply for being persistent and consistent. I do not know whether it is my job as one of the newest Members here to say that that sort of language in a debate helps neither the debate nor the reputation of this House.
I also thought that I should not intervene because, frankly, there are so many big beasts of the European jungle here—some very big beasts. Looking around this Chamber I can see that many of them are waiting to pounce, although where they were last week when the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and I defended the honour of this place in the Commons versus Lords tug of war, I do not know. I wish they had been there. For those who do not know, we came a very close second.
Listening to this debate, I often feel as though I have dropped into the scene of that wonderful film, “Casablanca”, right at the very end when the wicked deed has been done, the fog is swirling, the body is lying on the ground and the police captain instructs his men:
“Round up the usual suspects”.
Having sat through this Bill for so many hours, I am beginning to recognise some of those usual suspects. If they will forgive me, I think it is not I who have missed the point but they. We have heard the blandishments of compromise that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has put forward so eloquently today, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Apparently we cannot afford a referendum on these issues. We have just had a referendum on AV, which no one seemed to want, so why can we not afford referendums on matters that people so clearly want?
This debate has tried to bury the point in details rather than address the fundamental purpose. This amendment, like so many of the others that we shall deal with today, is yet another excellent example of that. The details are of course important, but the fundamental purpose of making the EU responsive to the people is far more so.
Europe is unpopular and is growing ever more so. No institution that claims to be democratic can sustain itself in the face of continued popular hostility. That is the huge challenge that this Bill aims to meet. We have heard it called a process of reconnection, but that language is insufficient. This Bill is much more than that; it is an attempt to save the European Union from itself.
It is my firm proposition, and, I believe, that of the Bill, that the people know best. To suggest, as so many of the amendments do, that there is nothing wrong with an institution that asks to be taken on trust yet embraces accounting practices that would have any company director thrown in jail is hopeless. Some might even argue that it is pretty shameful. Ministers have been accused constantly of not listening. Well, your Lordships will forgive me if I say that it is the usual suspects who have not been listening; they seem even afraid to listen. If they had listened more, perhaps we would not need this Bill. The Bill is a mark of their failure, a failure to recognise the need for change.
There is nothing inherently wrong or evil in the European dream. What so many ordinary men and women object to is the way in which that dream has been put into practice, imposed from the top down rather than built from the bottom up, so that it has now become so top-heavy it is in danger of toppling.
The face of Europe has changed over these past 40 years, whether the people accepted it or not. Often, little has changed perhaps from day to day; just a small change here, a little adjustment, a nip or a tuck there—a bit of bureaucratic Botox for which the EU is so well known. However, as with any ageing process, the face has ultimately changed beyond all recognition. It needs rejuvenation, and the only way to do that is by re-establishing the pre-eminence of the people in its deliberations. That will not harm the European dream; it will save it. The great irony of this amendment and all the amendments that we will discuss today is that, if they are pushed to a vote by their proposers, it is a vote that they will deny the people whom we were sent here to serve.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, referred to the argument about Parliament and said that the party positions had changed. However, I said at the beginning of my remarks on the Bill last week that we are nothing if not consistent in our consistencies. This House voted so that people such as me in Northern Ireland would have a referendum on our constitutional future and that we would decide. As recently as on a visit to Northern Ireland last week, the Prime Minister said that the decision about its future lay with the people there; he did not say that it lay with Parliament. If we want to take the argument to its logical conclusion, that Parliament decides everything, why did Parliament provide for referenda in the first place? If you are going to be consistent in saying that such matters are a decision for Parliament, you do not have referenda. However, we do have referenda. We had one in 1975, and we have had a number since. Therefore, the argument that Parliament always takes the decisions is simply not true.
Edmund Burke was quoted again. He is very popular in this debate, but we are talking about the 18th century and things have moved on. Life has changed. We have a totally different world in which people are, thank God, educated and able to participate in a meaningful way and no longer require people who can read and write to interpret things for them. As a new Member, it has struck me from the very beginning of our debates on the Bill that it is hard to construct an argument that we support the Bill in broad terms, inelegant though it might be, without automatically being deemed to be someone who does not want to have anything to do with Europe. I refute that. There are positive things about Europe, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, in the view of the British people Europe has been systematically salami-sliced.
I think I understand why that is. There is a small group of people at the heart of Europe who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, believe ultimately in a large superstate to rival the United States. We saw an example of that last week when one former Prime Minister said that we now need a leader. I am not speculating on who he thought that person might be, but the implication is that the nation state is not held by some people to be the fundamental building block of the European Union. Indeed, the nation state is merely in transition towards something else.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
The fact that there is a difference in Parliament from what happens at elections is precisely what we are discussing. The fact is that after the passing of the Amsterdam treaty the British people re-elected a Labour Government and after the passing of the Nice treaty the British people re-elected a Labour Government. They had the opportunity to get rid of the Government on those occasions and they chose not to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, made a very interesting argument. He said, with passionate conviction, that the British people know best. Do we therefore extend that argument to a referendum on the current health proposals that are dominating our headlines and are probably far closer to the hearts of the British people than a lot of what we are discussing here? Did it occur to the Benches opposite to have a referendum on the increases in university fees?
Lord Dobbs
Does the noble Baroness accept that I was trying to make the point that there should be moderation and a sense of balance in all this? That is what so many parts of this argument lack. It is not a matter to be taken to extremes; it is a matter of balance and common sense. Had we pursued that with the British people, they would be far more onside than they are.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, of course it is a question of balance and common sense. Where do we find arguments about balance and common sense but in another place and, especially, here? It is here where we have those arguments and can argue out what is in a Bill.
The noble Lord said that the British people know best—he did not qualify the sentence that he uttered—in making his argument about how important referendums could be. I merely suggest to him that the British people would perhaps have liked to have had a referendum on the increases in university fees.
European Union Bill
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, although I oppose both Amendments 61 and 63 for attempting to kill the Bill before its effect can be seen in practice, I have some sympathy with Amendment 62. Over the eight days that this Committee has sat, many noble Lords have expressed concern from both the pro and the anti-European perspectives about detail that is often not in the Bill itself, as the Bill is not about policy but very much about a legislative route and framework. As a new member of this House, I have found it somewhat bemusing that we have ended up debating policy issues—particularly dead-fish catches—when the Bill seems really to focus on the framework. That is not surprising given the strength of feeling on all sides about Europe, and I recognise that it is unlikely that we will ever reach unanimity; obviously, much of the concern is about that. Indeed, that was expressed in the coalition agreement—that we would be working from different policy perspectives but trying to find a route where we could work together, better to engage with the British public.
I have some sympathy with Amendment 62, on the grounds that it proposes a range of actions available for a future Parliament, and a future Secretary of State and his or her Government. However, there is one fundamental flaw with Amendment 62, in that it proposes that Part 1 and Schedule 1 expire at the end of this Parliament. The Government have said that they do not expect any referendums during this Parliament, because it is not expected that there will be any transfers of powers or competences during this Parliament. As an aside, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, is conflating the “policy versus law” argument that I made earlier, because the Government have announced that they are taking the logic of this and turning it into law for the framework, not tackling policy issues.
That is why I hope that the arguments made in Amendment 64, to which I have added my name, will find favour with the Committee. It is a probing amendment that tries to find a pragmatic route through the current impasse in the House. In the amendment, we propose a sunset clause for half way through the next Parliament, which will give time to see how the referendum lock would work in practice. Importantly, it also provides for the opportunity to revive the order, should a future Secretary of State so will it; of course the correct instruments would go through both Houses. This gives a future Parliament the means to let the Act expire or to revive it by order, without having to schedule large amounts of time in both Houses at the beginning of a new Parliament. Amendment 64 therefore offers a neat solution for those on all sides of the argument, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, I had intended to intervene for the very first time on the Bill to make a passionate denunciation of the idea of a sunset clause—on its inappropriateness—and I understand that if I do not intervene today I might have trouble intervening at a later stage. Given the pressures of time, I hope that the House will give me leave to not make that intervention today, but perhaps to intervene at a later stage.
Lord Liddle
I think we should thank the noble Lord for that, so that we can get on to our quick lunch and then to President Obama.
This debate on sunset clauses has been important. Amendment 63 is in my name. Frankly, I would happily support any of the amendments, because in this long Committee stage the Government have failed to make the case for the detail of the Bill as it stands. Because they have not done so, we are legitimate in proposing a sunset arrangement. Of course, on this side of the House we accept that there is a genuine issue about the popular legitimacy of the European Union. That is a matter for regret from our perspective, but it has to be addressed. The best way in which it could be addressed in this country is by establishing a cross-party consensus in favour of our membership of the European Union and for all parties to speak in that way. I do not think that the Bill is going to do much to establish that cross-party consensus, but it is an opportunity to address anti-Europeanism in our country. The rise of populist parties in other parts of Europe is also a matter of great concern. Britain is not alone in facing this legitimacy question.
We need to do something to strengthen the EU’s legitimacy, but do we need this Bill? There are features of the Bill that the Government have put forward that we are prepared to accept. They represent a strengthening of parliamentary accountability and of the circumstances in which referenda might be held. We now accept, which was not the case when the Lisbon treaty was ratified, that most of the things that come under passerelles and other consequentials of the Lisbon treaty should require a full Act of Parliament. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that this side supports strengthening parliamentary accountability over what decisions the Government take in Europe. On that, we are agreed. We also accept the codification in statute of the political consensus that we would have to have a referendum to join the euro and that referenda should be considered on issues of major constitutional significance. As I said earlier in Committee, a major constitutional treaty that, for instance, led to the direct election of the president of Europe would be that kind of constitutional change that would require a referendum. There is also a strong case to be considered for referenda should we wish at some stage in our national interest to surrender our border controls or to establish a common defence force. These are very big issues which could be suitable for referenda.
This Bill does not do that. It does not focus on the simple, straightforward case that in most issues you should strengthen parliamentary accountability and then on really big issues you should accommodate the possibility of referenda. Instead, it puts in place multiple referendum locks. We count 56, although I am not quite sure whether that number is right. This is a wholly new constitutional innovation on which many Members on all sides of the Committee have expressed severe reservations. In the course of the Committee, we have tried to reduce the number of referendum locks. We have argued, again with the support of a broad range of opinion in this Committee, that Ministers should be able to exercise judgment about which matters are significant on many of the minor changes and minor treaty revisions on which this Bill imposes a referendum lock. We have argued for a parliamentary process—a Joint Committee of both Houses—to consider where referenda might be necessary. We have supported amendments that would simplify Clause 6 and boil down the number of referendum locks to the really big issues.
We have had no give from the Government on any of those issues through this long Committee. That is why we come back to say that the Government have not been prepared in any way to consider the wide range of opinion in this House that the Bill needs substantial amendment, so it is right to suggest that if it is to stay as it is, the whole thing should be sunsetted. I do not blame the Minister for that; I think he has very little freedom to make concessions in this House. The only time we will get concessions from the Government is if, in voting on Report, we can make changes to the Bill. We have no intention of pressing the issues to a vote today. The whole Bill rests on the misjudgment that the leadership of the coalition has made that Europe is somehow a dead issue in our national politics; that the Lisbon treaty was, as it were, Europe's last gasp in terms of changes in its constitutional architecture; and that the Bill is therefore a cheap bone that can be thrown to the many Eurosceptics on the Benches supporting the coalition in the House of Commons.
That is a great shame for a couple of reasons. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, no one can precisely foretell now how the European Union might have to adapt in future. Therefore, the warning of the Council’s former legal adviser, Jean-Claude Piris, that Britain might find that others go ahead and Britain is marginalised, is likely to prove correct were the Bill to last for the longer term. It could have that very damaging long-term effect on Britain's position in Europe. That is a shame, because the coalition Government, in their day-to-day policy on Europe, are trying to be positive. They present the Janus-faced stance of appealing to the anti-Europeans with this disgraceful piece of legislation on the one hand; and yet, when they go to Brussels, they try to present a positive picture of Britain's role in Europe. They signed up for the defence treaty with France. They have argued for deepening the single market. I would not disagree with a word of the speech to be made today by David Lidington, the Europe Minister, which was trailed in the Financial Times this morning. The Government are being positive, but the truth is that, were the coalition to stay in power—of course I would not wish for that—or the Conservatives to be in power for the longer term, if they wish to pursue a positive European policy, because there will need to be adjustments to the rules over time as well as to decisions, they will find their Bill increasingly an albatross. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Davies who described it as the handcuffs of the multiple referenda.
That is a great pity, because far from Europe being a dead issue, we are at a turning point in our national affairs where, in economics, we have in this country to search for a new economic model. We have to rebalance our economy, which can be done only through rebuilding our export strength. Nothing is more important for that than our full engagement in the European single market, and therefore we have to be as co-operative and positive as we can. In terms of our role in the world, we should heed what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said in his speeches both today and a couple of days ago. As Asia emerges ever stronger, Britain is more dependent on the influence it can multiply through the European Union to have a role in the world. These are big reasons for showing our full commitment to Europe and why we have to be prepared to be flexible in our dealings with our partners rather than lock ourselves out, which is what the impact of this Bill will be.
In conclusion, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who quoted from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, on this side of the Chamber we believe that the European Union is a lasting dream, but this Bill is a nightmare and should be sunsetted at the Report stage.
Libya
Lord Dobbs Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen today to such an incisive, important and well informed debate. I thank the Minister for enabling this to take place. Most of all, I offer my thanks to the young men and women of our Armed Forces who, once again, have been sent into the eye of the storm and performed brilliantly. It is because of their expertise that so few civilians, if any, have died as a result of the coalition bombing. If there had been casualties, you may be sure that Gaddafi would have dragged every camera crew in Tripoli to the mortuary to see them, as he did in 1986.
Nevertheless, we stand on a difficult and potentially slippery slope. The Middle East has often proved to be a pathway to chaos. It is difficult to think of a single occasion since the Second World War when we have become heavily involved in events in the region and not come away with a bloody nose. I hope I am wrong. Perhaps I have forgotten some great triumph, but from Suez to Iraq, Iran, Palestine and so many of the deserts beyond, it has been a desperately hard road. That is why we must be deeply cautious about arming any of the combatants. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to some of the legal questions that arise, and many others to the practical difficulties. I, like them, simply do not know who these anti-Gaddafi rebels are or what they want. They may not even know themselves what they want, apart from to get rid of Gaddafi. Are these people any better than Osama bin Laden? We have to ask those difficult questions because we in the West armed him, too—another very bloody nose.
There has also been a potentially dangerous tendency to equate every anti-government demonstration in the Middle East with a demand for democracy. I am not sure that link is always clear or convincing. There has been an even bolder leap of faith in proclaiming that Arab democracy will lead to peace in the Middle East and a willingness to deal with Israel. The hatred of Israel has been a remarkably popular cause in much of the Arab world. We cannot change that fact simply by trying to ignore it. That is why we should applaud the Prime Minister for calling the summit earlier this week in London, not simply to examine the conditions of combat but to start work on the still more important plan for the peace that might lie beyond.
Let us face it: we occupy no great moral high ground in this process. The war in Iraq saw to that. Too many people remember our chaotic dealings with Gaddafi himself, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, pointed out. Our policy towards Gaddafi over the past 30 years has been blown from one corner to another. We reviled him and imprisoned his agent for mass murder; then we embraced him and educated his sons; and now—another somersault—we are trying to get rid of him. Diplomacy requires us to climb into some pretty uncomfortable beds at times, but there have been few beds as rumpled as that of Colonel Gaddafi. If we found it necessary to climb into his bed, surely it was never necessary to kiss him on both cheeks in the process. Gaddafi must have been laughing all the way back to his tent after that. He made fools not just of Mr Blair but of us all.
However, perhaps we can now make the fresh start that we need. There is a fashionable description of what we are seeing. It is called, as we have heard, the Arab spring. I hope that is right and that it is more than simply a headline. It is undeniable that some sort of profound change is happening in many countries. The Facebook revolution has stripped these oppressive regimes of the power to cover up their crimes. The secret state has been undermined. This opens up opportunities for a broader peace in the Middle East that were unthinkable even a few years ago. We may be on the brink of a historic opportunity; it is one we cannot afford to miss. People ask, “What is the end game?”. That must be the end game—peace, not just in Libya but more broadly throughout the Middle East.
That is easier said than done, of course. If peace is to happen, it is a process in which, as the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Risby, said, Israel must play its part, no matter how difficult that must be for it. A true peace will require courage and initiative from the Israelis. It will require them to take great risks and give up things that they cherish. But any hope of peace must also embrace ordinary Arabs, not just elites. If this Arab spring is to turn to glorious summer, it must mean a much wider spread of economic opportunity than is currently the case in most of these societies.
If it is to be part of our policy to help rebel Arab groups form new Governments, it must also be part of our policy to insist that they become partners in a wider Middle East peace, one based on the recognition that Israel has the right to exist. It would be folly to help Libyan rebels take power only to discover yet again that we had backed the wrong horse. The details will be far more complex than simply the recognition of Israel of course, but we have to pursue the goal of a wider peace remorselessly, unremittingly and, if necessary, ruthlessly; otherwise, what is the point of all this? We have to use all the power and influence we have with our allies, particularly the United States, to insist that this battle we are fighting in Libya does not turn into another wasted opportunity. Whatever aid is given, it has a price, and that price is a commitment to a wider peace. It is not just the future of Libya we are fighting for; our future is also at stake here.