European Union: Recent Developments

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, first, let me make it clear that the Opposition support the two Bills that have their Second Readings today. We do not intend to move any amendments either in Committee or on Report. I hope that the Government regard this approach as constructive. I have two brief points on the Bills. The European Union (Approvals) Bill points to one of the areas where the previous Labour Government fought hard to achieve reform but failed to succeed—to reduce the size of the European Commission. I understand why, in a Union dominated by the large member states, every member state wants to keep its own Commissioner. However, this is neither efficient—in terms of the transaction of the Commission’s business—nor is it a proper understanding of the role of the Commission, which is to speak for the interests of the Union as a whole, not the interests of individual member states. I am sure that debate on this issue will return in future. Secondly, on the Croatian accession Bill, it is worth remembering that, for all its tribulations, this is a European Union that many millions of people still want to join. Those who want to leave should take note of that.

This has been an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, to present her first tour d’horizon of the state of the Union. I agreed with many of the positive things that she said but would have liked to hear more. The big question that she has not answered is: what is the Government’s policy for the future of Europe? In his Daily Telegraph article of 1 July this year, the Prime Minister wrote of the need for a fresh settlement with fresh consent. He wrote that,

“far from there being too little Europe, there is too much of it”,

and argued that:

“Whole swathes of legislation covering social issues, working time and home affairs should … be scrapped”.

To advance this agenda he wrote of opportunities to come in future—probably future treaties—where we will be able to take forward our interests. His fresh settlement would require the full-hearted consent of the people. In a statement of ringing clarity, he wrote that for him the words “referendum” and “Europe” went together—whatever that means.

It is our first duty as the Opposition to clarify what the Government’s policy on Europe is and, when we have done that, to say what we think of it. What is the nature of the new settlement that the Conservative Party is seeking? How radical a change is the Prime Minister seeking to make? One relatively modest interpretation of the Prime Minister’s statements is that he is seeking to exercise our justice and home affairs opt-out and to reintroduce an equivalent of the Social Chapter opt-out that John Major negotiated at Maastricht, extended to cover the health and safety measures that provide the legal basis for the working time directive. Is that the minimum change or the maximum change that the Government would like to see? We on this side of the House are clear that even if it were to be the maximum, we would have very grave reservations about it. According to police and intelligence chiefs, the exercise of the general JHA opt-out would be damaging to Britain’s security. As the European Commissioner responsible recently pointed out, there is absolutely no guarantee that Britain could opt back in to individual measures.

On the social opt-outs, is it the Government’s aim that directives such as those on parental leave, agency workers, information and consultation would no longer apply in the UK? Do the Government object to every single aspect of the working time directive—for example, minimum holiday entitlements—or simply to the 48-hour maximum working week provision? What other health and safety measures does the Prime Minister find objectionable? Is it proposed that, should the opt-out be achieved, equivalent domestic legislation would be introduced? Or is the government and Conservative position that all the social protections that the EU presently offers working people are an unnecessary burden on business that, in order for Britain to succeed in what they call the “global race”, must now be scrapped? I will happily give way if the noble Baroness would like to clarify the Government’s position, but I suspect that she will not. However, does she agree that the people of this country, many of whom work very hard with very basic protections, have an entitlement to know what her party’s policy is?

Other Conservatives go much further. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, talks of a Europe pared down to the single market. What would a Europe pared down to the single market look like? As the Prime Minister said, the single market is much more than simply a free trade area. It includes the removal of barriers that exist behind borders, as well as the removal of tariffs and quotas. That requires common regulatory standards, without which there can be no free flow of goods and services in the market that accounts for roughly half our trade. Can we be clear about this? If the Prime Minister accepts that the single market amounts to more than simply the absence of tariffs and quotas at the border, does he accept the necessity for common regulatory standards that cover issues such as consumer rights, environmental standards, health and safety rules under which goods can be made and services offered, drug testing, food safety, packaging, and waste disposal? Would a Europe pared down to the single market still include these protections? What is the answer?

We are not saying that the way the EU presently makes laws and regulations is perfect. The acquis of European legislation needs constant review. In my view, this should be done independently. In managing the single market the Commission should give greater weight to the economic effects of national differences in regulation and not pursue harmonisation for its own sake. However, this is an agenda for the whole EU, not one that seeks special opt-outs for Britain and a so-called “renegotiated relationship”. Frankly, that agenda is unnegotiable. Will Ministers tell us how we can expect to maintain access to the single market and negotiate an à la carte Europe at the same time?

We must look at realities. If Peugeot and Fiat already have difficulty competing with Volkswagen, which they do, why should national Governments agree to arrangements that in their mindset would allow British-based manufacturers to scrap regulation, cut costs and gain an unfair competitive advantage? On the continent they already think that because we are outside the euro we have enjoyed an unfair advantage as a result of sterling depreciation. Can the Minister not see that what is being suggested would be completely unacceptable to our partners?

Nor, in our view, is this argument right in principle. It is neither wise nor legitimate. Who in this Chamber seriously believes that a credible growth strategy for Britain in this global race can be pursued on the basis of cheap labour, bad safety standards and environmentally shoddy goods? We need to take the high road to competiveness. If the Germans, Dutch and Swedes can compete successfully in global markets on the basis of high European standards of regulation, why cannot the British do so as well?

This policy has high risks. The very mention of renegotiation and an in-out referendum will deter inward investors, perhaps from China and India, who are looking to the UK as a long-term basis for their operations in Europe. If the renegotiation fails—because, as any objective person must assume, its objectives are essentially unattainable—Britain will quickly move down a slippery slope towards exit.

Britain’s policy for the future of Europe should be based on reform, not renegotiation. Yes to a reformed EU budget, yes to a reformed Commission, yes to a reformed law-making process with reviews of the acquis and to a bigger role for national Parliaments. Most of all, yes to a Europe with the collective means to pursue a reformed economic policy that replaces collective austerity with investment in the future, and to a Europe that is strong enough to represent our values and interests in a world where Britain on its own will have progressively less clout and leverage.

On 10 December the EU received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Most of the leaders of Europe attended; shamefully, Britain’s did not. I end by quoting something that President Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, said on that day because it is relevant to Britain. He said:

“When prosperity and employment, the bedrock of our societies, appear threatened, it is natural to see a hardening of hearts, the narrowing of interests, even the return of long-forgotten fault-lines and stereotypes. For some, not only joint decisions, but the very fact of deciding jointly, may come into doubt. And while we must keep a sense of proportion—even such tensions don't take us back to the darkness of the past—the test Europe is currently facing is real … We answer with our deeds, confident we will succeed. We are working very hard to overcome the difficulties, to restore growth and jobs. There is of course sheer necessity. But there is more that guides us: the will to remain masters of our own destiny, a sense of togetherness, and in a way, speaking to us from the centuries, the idea of Europa itself. The presence of so many European leaders here today underlines our common conviction: that we will come out of this together, and stronger. Strong enough in the world to defend our interests and promote our values. We all work to leave a better Europe for the children of today and those of tomorrow. So that, later, others might turn and judge: that generation, ours, preserved the promise of Europe”.

That is a promise many of us in this House will fight to our last breath to keep.