European Affairs

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and William Cash

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), because both of them have sought and achieved a level of debate that this subject certainly deserves. I wish to say something to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure he would agree with me on this. As he knows, I have utter admiration for his grandfather, being one who was born on 10 May 1940, when he assumed the prime ministership of this country and when Hitler invaded Holland and France. However, many of Sir Winston Churchill’s pronouncements on the issue of Europe changed as time progressed. In particular, he said at one point, much later than 1948, that we should be “associated but not absorbed”. The movements that were taking place and which were apparent to Sir Anthony Eden and to others in the late 1940s and early 1950s did have a significant impact on the thinking of our great, great former Prime Minister Sir Winston himself. In saying that we should be associated but not absorbed, he had understood that there were movements afoot that were not in the interests of the United Kingdom.

Sir Winston also said that we should tell the truth to the British people. He went on to make it clear that what he meant by that was that the British people will follow you if you tell them that truth. Sadly, I believe that what has been happening in the recent months, and in the whole of this debate, is just as I indicated in my response to the Prime Minister’s statement on 3 February, when I said that he was bypassing not only his promises, but his principles. I also said that I thought there was a problem with this expression “legally binding and irreversible” and with the stitch-up, as I put it, with respect to the political decision that I anticipated would be taken in a few days’ time and which of course was taken on 10 February. I thought this expression “legally binding and irreversible” would lead on 23 June, which has turned out to be the referendum date, to something on which the voters would not be able to rely. It is strong words to say that I believe the voter is already being cheated in this respect.

I say that for this reason, and with prudence and with care: right at the heart of this is voters’ trust. I also said that on 3 February. The truth is that, for all the arguments that have developed over these words “legally binding and irreversible”, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary very carefully avoided using the word “irreversible”. He mentioned “legally binding”. Indeed, the conclusions to the summit on 17 to 18 February specifically referred to “legally binding” and specifically did not refer to the word “irreversible”. There is a good reason for that, as we have said on numerous occasions in the European Scrutiny Committee. We have said it in our reports recently and in our cross-examination of the Foreign Secretary the other day. This is all about voter trust.

Let us take as an example the removal of the words “ever-closer union” in respect of the United Kingdom. As I had to point out to the Foreign Secretary, that is not in the preamble; it is in article 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Therefore, any removal requires treaty change, but we are not being given treaty change. We are relying on an international agreement. I will not say that such an agreement does not have a certain legal character, but it does not bind the European Court of Justice. It does not guarantee that other member states may veto any treaty change that might follow. It also does not guarantee what the European Court of Justice may say about it. It does not take into account the fact that other states will be holding referendums on this subject, of which Ireland is one such example, the outcome of which cannot possibly be predicted—not as said by a Member of Parliament on the “Today” programme yesterday.

[Mr Jackson]

Like many Conservative Members of Parliament, we wished the Prime Minister well as he went forward with negotiations. Obviously, we are very disappointed with the gossamer-thin substance of the agreement with which he came back a week or so ago. Is not the offence compounded by the fact that we were led to believe in the Bloomberg speech in January 2013 that we were looking at a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union, and that clearly and sadly has not happened?

[Sir William Cash]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I made that very point on 3 February in my response to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Prime Minister also said that our democracy in our Westminster Parliament was the root of our freedom of choice—that was the essence of what he was saying. I also have fears about the framework of this agreement and the developments by successive Governments in successive treaties. For example, I voted yes in 1975. While I pursued the Government and harried them over the Maastricht rebellion, the situation changed dramatically when the Maastricht treaty was brought into being.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and William Cash

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Debate on the Address

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and William Cash

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

Well said. I entirely concur with my hon. Friend.

On the repeal of the Human Rights Act, when I was shadow Attorney General, I pushed that policy with the help of colleagues in the shadow Cabinet. It remained as a commitment in our manifesto until the coalition of 2010. It was abandoned because of the Liberal Democrats, and now it is to be revived. I offer a word of caution, however, because it is a very important issue. In many respects, it is part of the “who governs?” issue and I strongly suggest adhering to the proposals in the Queen’s Speech. We need a proper discussion. I am clear in my mind, as is Lord Judge and many other distinguished judges, that there are serious problems with the manner of interpretation in the Strasbourg Court and with the use of right to family life as a principle, and how certain people manage to exploit the system, well funded by the human rights lobby, to carry on when they should have packed up a long time ago.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that we need to reacquaint our friends at the other end of the Palace with the concept of the Salisbury convention? They are seeking to undermine the legitimacy and sovereignty of this House, which has a fresh mandate on issues such as the Human Rights Act.

[Sir William Cash]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the Salisbury convention, but we need to respect the fact that some very powerful views are held by some very distinguished people who disagree with us. We do not want to drive change through with a sledgehammer: we need some pre-legislative scrutiny so that the analysis can be properly conducted. I believe that we will win the argument, but it needs to be done openly, transparently and with a proper degree of scrutiny.

As I said in reply to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Gordon, the Maastricht referendum campaign—on which we got hundreds of thousands of signatures—should have resulted in a referendum back then. As the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, there has been no referendum since 1975, and some 40 million people have never had a chance to look at the question and have their say. That is despite the fact that since 1975 we have moved from a common market, which I have always preferred, to a new arrangement with vast accumulations of power concentrated in the European Union. The point is not made clearly enough, in my opinion, that whatever the circumstances may be of the eurozone—and the desire of the French and the Germans to get together—it is not an entity in itself. It is part of the European Union and it affects us directly. Therefore, if we do not make the kind of changes to which the Prime Minister referred in his last European Council statement on 23 March, we could end up nibbling at the treaties in minimalist negotiations and failing to deal with the political, economic and constitutional structures that need to be tackled. This is a question of fundamental change, and I believe strongly that if we do not make those changes the British people will end up in the second tier of a two-tier Europe that is increasingly dominated by Germany. That is not something that the British people should countenance.

I hear it said that we can ask only for that which is not impossible, but we should put that the other way round and say that it is impossible for us to contemplate the idea of a two-tier Europe. That is unacceptable. I call in aid the Prime Minister, who said—in his statement and not in response to a question that he might have misinterpreted—on 23 March:

“In the coming two years, we have the opportunity to reform the EU”—

good—

“and fundamentally change Britain’s relationship with it.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1122.]

He separated the idea of reform from fundamental change because he knows—as do the Foreign Office, the establishment and the European Union—that this is not just a question of reform of policy or individual laws, such as on immigration, however important they may be. This is a fundamental constitutional issue in which we have been locked by the treaties and under the European Communities Act 1972, raising such questions as the nature of the manner in which are governed.

In addition to that, there is the charter of fundamental rights, which I mentioned. Despite the fact that Tony Blair himself did not want us to be affected by the charter—he wanted to exclude us and Peter Goldsmith was sent over to do a protocol, but it was a botched job—the net result is that we are now subject to the ECJ in relation to the charter of fundamental rights, quite apart from any matter relating to human rights. In that respect, I recommend that hon. Members read the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, which I organised and commissioned. We examined the question for more than a year, and we concluded that the only way we could get out of that situation was by using the notwithstanding formula to bypass the European Communities Act.

The Prime Minister has rightly used the expression “one nation”. Where did that phrase come from? Disraeli. What did Disraeli also say? He said that the Tory party is a national party, or it is nothing. He did not say nationalistic; he said national. That is why this question of fundamental change is so important. I too am a believer in one nation. I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionists for their firm affirmation in this important Queen’s Speech on that very matter. I understand of course that the SNP takes a different view, but one nation has served this country proud, not merely for decades or generations but for centuries, and we must adhere to it at all costs.

The phrase “one nation” came from Disraeli’s book “Sybil, or The Two Nations”, which was about his awareness of the necessity of helping the working people of the 19th century. That was his great mission and he achieved it. Let us go forward with one nation, as one nation, and at the same time make certain that we are not governed by other nations through the majority voting system in such a way as to prevent the people who voted in this general election from having what they want and what they deserve.

European Union

Debate between Lord Jackson of Peterborough and William Cash

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The reality is that the markets are already demonstrating that there is almost no chance of the euro being saved. In addition, it is way beyond legal devices for people to claim that they will be able to stitch together an arrangement through some method of enhanced co-operation, article 136 and all the rest of it, against the background of the implosion going on outside in the eurozone, and indeed in the European Union as a whole. I am disturbed by some of the language that I have been reading in the papers. As I indicated in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, legal advice has already been given, presumably by the Foreign Office, to the Government that they will be able to stitch together some kind of device that will enable the European Commission and the European Court of Justice to give a spurious authority—a spurious jurisdiction—to the deal between the 17 plus the others that wish to join in with them.

I would go further and say that, as has been said by a number of my hon. Friends, there are indications that some of the countries concerned are beginning to realise that when they go back to their Parliaments they will have to look also to their electors. The idea of unanimity in the confines of the euro establishment’s comfy offices is not quite the same as having to face the consequences of the austerity measures, and to face up to protests and riots in some of those countries. That is where the decisions will eventually be taken, because we are talking about people; we are not talking about machines. We are not just talking about jurisdiction. There is far too much talk of trying to stitch up arrangements for the sake of convenience.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Is my hon. Friend not as incredulous as I am that those on the left in this country and across Europe are willing to be complicit in support for these fiscal policies? Working people in Europe will be subject to social discord, stagflation, unemployment and depression for the sake of the continuation of the European Union’s policies.

[Mr Cash]

Yes. This fantasy of a European Union and how it has developed through the existing treaties is the reason we have the crisis in Europe as a whole. That is why we need fundamental change: the existing treaties are the cause of the crisis. It is not just a question of the single markets or, for that matter, the single market—