Ukraine: Defence Relationships
Lord Liddle Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
That this House takes note of (1) the impact of the conflict in Ukraine, (2) the implications for the Integrated Defence Review, and (3) the case for the United Kingdom strengthening (a) its relationships with the European Union and other European allies, and (b) its commitment to NATO.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, right at the start of this debate I want to put on record my admiration for the courage and heroism of Ukraine’s people and their president. The Russian invasion of Ukraine constitutes the greatest threat to peace in Europe since the Second World War. None of us imagined that we would ever again witness such terrible scenes of armed butchery on our continent, even though the horrors of Yugoslavia in the 1990s warn us that the blood-soaked legacies of Europe’s history cannot simply be washed away.
I have some experience of Ukraine. Some 20 years ago, the Prime Minister appointed me to head a regular No. 10 dialogue with its presidential administration. We visited Ukraine four or five times, taking in Crimea, Odessa and Lviv, as well as Kyiv, and there were return meetings in London. President Leonid Kuchma’s Ukraine was then deeply divided, caught between its western provinces, which are more nationalist and committed to Europe, and the pro-European east where the oligarchs retained close links to the old Soviet fatherland but did not want a return to Moscow domination. These divisions deepened at the time of 2014 revolution, the deposition and fleeing of President Yanukovych, Putin’s seizure of Crimea and the outbreak of civil war in the Donbass. Putin’s behaviour since then has force Ukrainians to make a choice, with the vast majority choosing freedom and independence, united behind a commitment to a shared European future.
Today, my emotions are very simple ones. Thank God for NATO. Thank God for 70-years of cross-party leadership that learned the lessons of the 20th century: that the world is safer when Britain does not cower, does not retrench and does not abandon our hard-fought values out of political expediency. Also, as a Labour man, let me say thank God for Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who gave us this legacy. Thank God for leaders of the Labour Party such as Hugh Gaitskell, Denis Healey and Jim Callaghan, who consistently sustained that legacy; and, in my generation, my noble friends Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Reid, both whom I had the privilege of working with very closely. Today, Keir Starmer stands firmly in that same tradition.
The Ukraine crisis shows that NATO belongs to the future not the past. It has shown the crucial role that at present the United States, and only the United States, can play. Joe Biden and his Administration have been magnificent, but the shadow of a re-elected Donald Trump hangs over NATO like a suspended death sentence. There will be no closer watchers of the 2022 mid-terms and the presidential primaries than the occupants of the Kremlin.
I congratulate the Government for a good part of their immediate Ukraine response: tougher sanctions on Russia, help for Ukraine’s devastated economy and rapid supply of weaponry. Yet our support for refugees has been lamentable, and we must do more to sanction Russians and hold them financially accountable for their conduct. Liz Truss’s rhetoric on war aims is overblown; she should remember that it is the brave Ukrainians, not us, who are fighting this war on the ground. Our aim should be to put Ukraine in a position where Zelensky can bring Putin to the negotiating table from a position of strength, not be forced to accede to a ceasefire that offers merely a temporary pause while Russia regroups. That requires Europe and the United States to devise a credible offer of military and economic security for Ukraine that, while not full NATO membership, is sufficient to deter Putin from future adventurism. We should also think about offering whoever emerges post Putin as his successor the potential for a relationship based on mutual security and respect, a return to the principles of the NATO-Russia Founding Act. We must preserve and strengthen NATO, and that means Britain and the rest of Europe rising from our past complacency, matching the gravity of current events with a concerted rethinking of the principles of our defence, foreign and wider security policy.
Ukraine has demonstrated that the key to our security is Europe, not the mushy rhetoric of global Britain. The requirement is a stronger and more united Europe with Britain playing its full part. Brexit is done. Let us for now put it behind us. The priority today is a more constructive approach to the EU and its key member states.
Let me suggest five ways forward. First, Britain needs to articulate a Europe-wide strategy to confront and contain Russia. Last year’s integrated review had some strengths. It half-identified the danger that stood before us: a revanchist Russian state intent on aggressively remaking the post-Cold War settlement. Yet it de-emphasised Britain’s commitment to Europe and the need for new thinking on transatlantic and European collective security. It deprioritised the Army. It focused British grand strategy on a tilt towards the Indo-Pacific to confront the rising power of China. It showed, in Professor Michael Clarke’s words,
“frankly insulting indifference to European partners”.
Its claims to be truly integrated now ring hollow. There was no discussion of oil, gas or energy security; no discussion of the role of Russia as the energy tap for so much of post-Cold War European development; no discussion of the power that OPEC nations continue to hold over the West; and no discussion of how the urgent transition from fossil fuels is now a security, as well as climate change, imperative. Furthermore, the advent of economic warfare against the Russian economy, with unprecedented sanctions, the freezing of central bank reserves and the pursuit of oligarchs across the world, is all new in international politics. The integrated review ignored the complexity of it.
Russia is the greatest threat to European security. Let us understand our objectives and our capabilities and build a strategy in common with our allies that will contain its aggressive ambitions. Only by articulating a common strategy, embracing a multilateral security partnership with our European allies, and only by embracing Europe, will we be taken seriously by the United States.
I have a question for the Minister. Are the Government planning to revise seriously their integrated review in the light of changed circumstances? Secondly, this will require reinvestment in British defence capabilities. The integrated review aspired to prepare us for a military challenge on the far side of the world but disregarded the necessary elements that would support our European partners and enable us to proactively confront Russia. The military was to be reshaped as
“leaner, more lethal, nimbler, and more effectively matched to current and future threats”.
Yet the Army in practice are set to lose their entire fleet of Warrior infantry fighting machines, with goodness knows what to replace them, and one-third of their Challenger tanks. Our land forces are now the smallest they have been since the 18th century.
We have been right to provide weaponry to the Ukrainian military, but we need urgently to replenish the stocks of those weapons that we have sent there. Even before Russia’s assault, the defence procurement budget faced a shortfall of more than £7 billion—incidentally, twice the whole of Ukraine’s 2021 defence budget. Rising inflation represents a further axe to the defence budget today, which is held constant in cash terms. My second question for the Minister is how much money has been set aside for replenishment of the weaponry that we have sent to Ukraine, and where is it coming from? The Government wax lyrical about global Britain, but we lack the capabilities to match words with action.
Thirdly, Britain should be an advocate for sustained investment in Ukrainian reconstruction and dealing with the global fallout from the conflict. NATO did not emerge in a vacuum. There was the Marshall Plan, and the focus on economic and social conditions, which brilliantly demonstrated the superiority of our values and economic system. Circumstances call on us to do the same again today. We must help Ukraine with debt—and, as for the emerging global famine, that is going to test us an awful lot over the coming months. We have to consider using the frozen Russian assets to invest in Ukrainian redevelopment and the mitigation of the global food crisis.
Fourthly, we must transform Britain’s relationship with the European Union, which our Government continue to treat with disdain. In some regards, this is deeply comical—for instance, when the Prime Minister would have us believe that the Ukrainian people’s struggle for their very lives is akin to Brexit. When the Foreign Secretary went to Brussels, she tweeted about her meetings with NATO and G7 allies but somehow forgot that she had been invited to the EU Foreign Affairs Council, a very special step on the part of the EU. Contempt cannot be a guiding principle for British foreign policy. The Foreign Secretary’s notion of an international network of liberty sounds appealing, but what on earth does it mean in practice? Sanctions, aid, energy policy and now weapons provisions are being co-ordinated through the mechanisms of the European Union. We must deal with realities, not fantasies, and build a sustainable partnership with them.
Fifthly—and this will be more controversial, I think—we should work with our European allies and partners to develop greater European strategic autonomy. Some deride President Macron’s advocacy of European strategic autonomy as a typically Gaullist and anti-American thing. I can see friends nodding on the other side of the House. Or they see it as a federalist project with which we should have nothing to do whatever. But in my view, it can be seen as a means of getting the whole of Europe to be serious about defence, as, thankfully, under Olaf Scholz, the Germans now are. It can, should and will complement NATO, not threaten NATO. How long have the Americans and the UK complained about the continent not living up to our NATO responsibilities? As a result of Ukraine, Germany is set to surpass, quite soon, the UK as the third-largest defence spender in the world.
We have no relationship with the enlarged budget of the European Defence Agency. How are we going to take part in procurement programmes? President Macron recently articulated the interesting idea of a tiered European political arrangement, with an outer political community for nations that are not EU members. Is this not an opportunity for Britain, a potential vehicle for closer European co-operation, without rejoining the EU itself?
I have another question for the Minister. What consideration are the Government giving to President Macron’s thinking? A European political community involves no loss of sovereignty for us. For Ukraine, it offers the chance to fulfil its European vocation. Some 86% of Ukrainians support EU membership— even two-thirds of those who live in the eastern provinces. I believe the EU should accept Ukraine as a candidate for membership, but getting there would be protracted and complex and exacerbated by the war. A European political community could give reality to Ukraine’s European vocation much sooner.
In conclusion, Putin is driving Europe together and driving it to change. Britain has to go with the flow. We are thinking a lot about the forthcoming NATO summit, the welcome prospect of Finnish and Swedish membership, the revision of the NATO strategic concept, but we should also be thinking about how we work with Europe’s common security and defence policy. Brexit has warped the discourse on European co-operation for far too long. There is no better time than this moment of acute danger for Britain to change course.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it was a privilege to introduce this debate and it has been a great pleasure to listen to the many and varied contributions we have had, even from very distinct perspectives such as those of my noble friend Lord Berkeley on the railways and my noble friend Lord Harris on national resilience. I was particularly interested in and am always eager to listen to the very thoughtful contributions from noble and gallant Lords. One of the biggest influences on me when I worked in No. 10 Downing Street was Charles Guthrie, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, from whom I learned an enormous amount and whom I was very privileged to know.
I will make just two big points. First, I am not trying to reopen the Brexit debate; I am talking about co-operation with the European Union. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said that the Government were open to new initiatives. That is good. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is absolutely right that the way NATO was created was first, fundamentally, from a bilateral security treaty between Britain and France—that is what Bevin started with, and then he extended it to Benelux—and then NATO came in. European security must have a European dimension to it. No one picked up on my point about the risks of how the politics of the United States might change to Europe’s disadvantage in the coming years. That is a very serious problem. So I am not trying to reopen an old debate, I am just trying to emphasise that Europe must be a vital part of NATO, and I am very strongly pro-NATO.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, gave a very comprehensive reply, but I asked him three questions which he did not really answer. The first was whether the Government would reconsider the integrated review. I rather gathered from what he said that they do not think that is necessary—that the integrated review can stand, despite the change in circumstances. I would be very grateful if he could confirm that in a letter to me.
I also raised a point about the funding of defence equipment, given what we have done for Ukraine—are we taking a hit on that in our own defence capacities or is the Treasury willing to open up the coffers to ensure that our defence is not weakened further? I would like a response on that if possible.
Thirdly, our longest and oldest ally is France. Therefore, when President Macron makes interesting suggestions about how European defence and co-operation should develop, it is the duty of the British Government to take him seriously and offer their own response to the points he is making. I wonder what that is and I would be very grateful in future if the Minister would tell me—and I beg to move.
Europe: Foreign Policy and Defence Co-operation
Lord Liddle Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to deepen foreign policy and defence cooperation with European allies, in particular France and Germany.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, European allies are vital in building a network of liberty and in tackling shared challenges. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with many of her European colleagues in recent weeks, as has the Prime Minister, including on the situation in Ukraine. France and Germany are two of our closest partners, and we work with both countries at the highest levels. Our forces regularly operate alongside one another around the world, including defending NATO’s eastern flank.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I tabled this Question before the Ukraine crisis reached fever pitch. I was pleased a couple of weeks ago that the Prime Minister said that he would bring together Europe in a united stance against President Putin, but now all I read is government briefing that Britain stands four-square with the United States, in contrast to the alleged weakness of France and Germany. Despite the Government’s temptation to scratch away at the Brexit issues that remain unresolved, will they now restate clearly and firmly the supreme and overriding importance they attach to a common European and NATO position with our European allies and friends, which in this moment of great crisis should come above all other considerations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, European security is clearly directly linked to UK security, and I do not think anyone questions this. We share many security and defence interests with our European allies, from addressing climate change to tackling malign actors. As one of only two European nations with truly global military reach and the largest European spend in NATO, we remain an essential ally on foreign policy, security and defence for the wider European Union.
Integrated Review: Development Aid
Lord Liddle Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Jay in paying tribute to Frank Judd, whose voice we miss today. Not only was he the director of VSO, he was also chief executive of Oxfam, to which he remained committed throughout his life. My wife was chair of Oxfam in his last few difficult years; he was a great support to her.
No one can compete with the eloquence of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in two minutes—he set out the case perfectly—but I want to look at what my noble friend Lord McConnell said: why has this political decision been taken? It seems totally inconsistent with the concept of global Britain. It seems quite unjustified in the present circumstances, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Hayman, outlined. Why has the Conservative Party—this question must be directed at the Conservative Party—which so bravely supported increases in overseas aid in the worst decade of austerity we have seen since the Second World War, now ratted on that commitment? I would like the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to give us an explanation and tell us how much money has been spent on focus groups and opinion polls to test this decision. I suspect that this Government want to pander to people’s worst instincts when our business in politics is to try to appeal to their better ones.
EU Ambassador to the UK: Diplomatic Status
Lord Liddle Excerpts(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Let me assure the noble Lord, who speaks with great insight and experience, that we are doing exactly that. We want to focus on the G7 summit and on the other important priorities that lie in front of us, including dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and the rollout of the vaccines, and, equally importantly, our planning for the COP 26 in November in Glasgow.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but does he understand that he is completely failing to convince the House of the need for any discussions about the status of the EU ambassador in Britain? Should he not be communicating this to the Foreign Secretary—who, although we have been urged many times by the Front Bench to move on from the Brexit debates and arguments, seems incapable of doing so in his search for cheap points that will go down well with his Brexiteer Back-Benchers?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I work closely with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and, as I said in response to an earlier question, of course I will feed back the sentiments of your Lordships’ House. However, I can speak for my right honourable friend. Over the past year or so I have seen the importance he attaches to our colleagues across the EU and the close working partnerships and friendships he has formed, so I disagree with the noble Lord in both the final element and the premise of his question: that is not the case. We work very closely with the EU collectively, but also with key partners within the EU, most notably Germany and France. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has an important role in leading on those relationships.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Liddle Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is difficult to follow such a brilliant speech from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but it has brought home to me what a privilege it is to be a Member of this House and I thank him for it. Boris Johnson’s Queen’s Speech, because that is what it is, is important because it marks a fundamental change in the national strategy of this country. Unlike his predecessor Mrs May, he really has bought into the notion of global Britain and it is that which I would like to explore in my speech.
The idea of a national strategy was first advanced by Alan Milward in his history of how Britain came to accept EU membership in the early 1960s. He described how the post-war national strategy was seen to be failing after Suez. Macmillan then developed a strategy based on joining the European Community for two main reasons. The first was that a close attachment to Europe’s markets and being part of what eventually became the single market would provide a very competitive framework for business and a sound basis for investment by the rest of the world. Secondly, if we were to maintain the pretensions of being the closest ally of the United States, politically the key to British influence was that we would have to be at the same time part of the developing European unity, because without it Washington would not take London seriously. That national strategy, which has worked until now with some ups and downs, has delivered for the United Kingdom. The 2016 referendum result was therefore—as I remember the noble Lord, Lord Butler, describing it in the first debate we had after the referendum—a dagger to the heart of everything we thought we had been doing in this country for the previous half-century.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that Mrs May had an opportunity to build a national consensus immediately after the referendum by taking us out of the European Union but keeping us in the Common Market. That could have been done, and would have won a lot of support and kept us in a very close relationship with our European friends. But that opportunity was not taken, and in the first year of her premiership we heard a lot of jargon. We had the Lancaster House speech and this constant reiteration that “Brexit means Brexit”, without explaining what Brexit meant.
However, I think that Mrs May, as she went deeper and deeper and got more experienced in European questions, basically wanted to save what she could from our membership of the European Union. Economically, she sought the closest possible alignment with the European single market, as long as we could escape from free movement. Politically, she emphasised a continuing wish to work closely with our EU partners on questions such as Russia, Iran, the Middle East and China.
Mr Johnson has opted for something quite different: a different concept of how Britain succeeds and a fundamentally different vision of Britain’s place in the world. I do not think this “global Britain” idea is based just on imperial nostalgia. In fact, I recommend to all your Lordships a brilliant article in this week’s New Statesman by Robert Saunders, a Queen Mary historian, titled “Myths from a Small Island”. He thinks that the Brexiteers, including Mr Johnson, have taken on board the myth of the Britain with the buccaneering spirit, the free-trading nation that can conquer the world, and that this lies behind so many of the statements of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Liam Fox and the Prime Minister himself. Quoting Liam Fox, he summed this up perfectly:
“A ‘small island perched on the edge of Europe’ had become ‘the world’s largest and most powerful trading nation’, not through its military or naval power, but through ‘a history steeped in innovation and endeavour’”.
This is what Dr Fox sees as our global future, as does Mr Johnson.
Dr Saunders points out how fatally flawed this vision is. First, when Britain dominated the world economically, it was because there were structural conditions that favoured it. We were the workshop of the world and generated enormous wealth that enabled us to have a Royal Navy that ruled the waves. That does not apply today. Secondly, it is very dangerous to perpetuate the myth that, by standing alone, Britain achieves its historical purpose and is at its best. We all buy too much into the Dunkirk myth. The truth is that what won the Second World War was the grand alliance with the United States and the power of the Red Army. Thirdly, Mr Johnson’s vision of the world relies so much on what we might describe as the power of positive thinking—the ability to brush aside the harsh realities—
Lord Framlingham (Con)
What part does the noble Lord think the Battle of Britain played in the Second World War?
Lord Liddle
The Battle of Britain was clearly important in keeping Britain in the war and keeping the flame of democracy alive. But I said that what won the war was not the Battle of Britain but the alliance with the United States and the power of the Red Army, and I think that that is true.
The power of positive thinking is very important to Mr Johnson and it leads to a kind of hubris that will inevitably lead to nemesis. We see that in the Queen’s Speech because three elements of the government strategy do not add up. The first is that we will transform Britain’s economic performance through a programme of deregulation, as my noble friend Lady Hayter put it. He says that we will tear away the bureaucratic red tape and release talent, innovation and chutzpah. Let us hear more about how that will be done. The fact is that the most innovative parts of our economy—the digital economy and the pharmaceutical companies—are desperate to stay in the framework of the single market. They do not want to be liberated from it: they want to be part of a common regulatory zone. The more that the Government present this unappealing vision to our European partners of a Singapore on the Thames, the more difficult it will be to secure preferential access to the single market. We can already see that in the negotiations presently taking place in Brussels.
The second contradiction is that Mr Johnson believes that he can sustain political support for this programme of deregulation through what he calls one-nation policies—addressing the people’s priorities of health, education, social care, crime and so forth. He will have great difficulty in doing that because, as the IFS pointed out this week, the forecast for the public sector deficit this year is already some £50 billion. Such policies might be achieved by combining them with increases in taxation, but Mr Johnson wants to slash taxes as well. The one-nation approach that he puts forward is not at all sustainable or likely to last.
The third contradiction is that the Prime Minister strongly believes that Britain can play this world role as a soft superpower, detached from the European Union. But if we are to do that, we need to recognise the Brexit headwinds that we will face. Every serious piece of economic analysis has shown that the kind of deal that Mr Johnson envisages will result in a loss of potential of something of the order of 7.5% of GDP. On that basis, you cannot build many of my noble friend Lord West’s frigates or play a leading role in world institutions, and we will find that we cannot pursue a strong foreign policy. If we go down this “global Britain” road, we face a future of great insecurity and uncertainty, and I hope that we can stop this madness before we are locked into it.
United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United States: Leaked Messages
Lord Liddle Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lady Quin for bringing this Motion to the House. I shall focus on what the leak means for relations between Ministers, officials and special advisers. For 15 years of my life I worked closely in that capacity with officials, eight of which were spent working with the Foreign Office and its diplomats. I have spent many hours enjoyably and informatively reading diplomatic telegrams—it was one of the delights of being an insider.
I have great concern about what this episode means for the relationship between politicians, officials and diplomats. It seems to me that the new Government are going to test this relationship to the limits. In politics, you always get leaks where there are disagreements and people want to put forward their own point of view, to position themselves more favourably vis-à-vis someone else. We have always had Cabinets which are, essentially, a team of rivals. It seems that the new Cabinet is a team of sycophants and to be a member of it you have to have the essential quality of faith, as the old evangelical preachers wanted you to have: if only you had faith and you believed something strongly enough, then you could make it true. That is the sycophancy that is at the heart of our new Prime Minister. How is that going to work with officials? I think it will work very badly and that is why the Darroch leak is so serious. I pay my own tribute to Sir Kim, with whom I worked closely over many years.
It seems plausible that the leak occurred as a result of an intervention, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, with a political, Brexiteer purpose in mind. Sir Kim’s offence in their eyes was that he provided honest analysis of the confusions and contradictions at the heart of the Trump Administration, with whom the Brexiteers want to establish a close relationship while ditching our relationship with Europe. The essence of civil servants is that they must be able, in confidence, to speak truth to power. My fear is that the Johnson Government will not want to be told that their prejudices are wrong; they have no real time for the facts and all that matters to them is the power of the will. This House could play a considerable role in the next few months in trying to launch an inquiry into the relationships between the Civil Service and Ministers. As constitutional guardians, that would be an appropriate role for us, as well as trying to hold the new Government to account. We need to ensure that one of the things that we very much value about this country—the principle that civil servants and diplomats are prepared to give, in confidence, their honest advice—is maintained.
Gibraltar
Lord Liddle Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am pleased to say that my right honourable friend David Davis is in Madrid today, and he has made it clear to Spain that our position is entirely in line with the answer that I have given to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. The noble Lord, as always, raises significant questions and is right that we have to be aware that, in any negotiation, other members of the European Union may raise issues which are of specific importance to them. That is what negotiations are about.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
While I accept the noble Baroness’s sincerity in saying that there is no change in Gibraltar’s position, surely the fact that we are leaving the European Union disadvantages Gibraltar an awful lot. When Spain has interfered improperly with the border in the past, we have had the strong support of the European Commission because this was in breach of the freedom of movement rules of the treaty. Does the noble Baroness accept that, now that we can no longer rely on those rules, Gibraltar’s position is bound to be considerably worse?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
No, my Lords, because we intend to ensure that the rights of Gibraltar are maintained throughout the negotiations. The border is an important issue; it will continue to be so, and it is a matter that we will resolve. Of course, at this stage, I am not able to provide the exact details of what agreements will be reached. After all, the leaked document to which noble Lords referred is a draft document; it is not even a final document produced by the Commission.
Brexit: UK-EU Relationship
Lord Liddle Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
That this House takes note of the best options for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union following the referendum vote to leave.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of Policy Network, a member of Cumbria County Council and Pro Chancellor of Lancaster University, all of which stand to lose as a result of Brexit.
In opening this debate, I am aware that in your Lordships’ House I have somewhat predictable form on Europe. I do not resile from the judgment I made earlier that Brexit will be the worst disaster for the United Kingdom since appeasement. But my focus for today’s debate is forward looking: given where we are, what would be Britain’s best possible relationship with the EU in future?
It is a particular pleasure to have the benefit of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, today. When I was in No. 10, it was a great privilege to work with Foreign Office officials of Peter Ricketts’ calibre. He joins a long and distinguished line of former diplomats who in their candour make a remarkable contribution to the work of this House. I look forward to his maiden speech today.
On the substance, I hope the House will allow me to be specific, clear and at times blunt. For the economy, there is no better solution in the national interest than Britain’s continued full participation in the single market. With Brexit we can no longer be members with voting rights—but forget the vague waffle about access. What matters is: first, that we stick to the EU rules and standards and update them as new rules are made; secondly, that we continue to make payments to the EU budget—forget that £350 million a week for the NHS; if Brexit goes bad, we will be cutting the NHS—and thirdly, that we accept directly, or, if the Prime Minister insists, indirectly, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice as EFTA members largely do through their separate EFTA court.
Such a course is overwhelmingly in the interests of jobs and living standards in the UK. Remaining a member of the customs union would be very much second best. While the customs union secures tariff-free access for manufacturing and food exports and avoids the complex bureaucracy of rules of origin, it leaves out services. In other words, it secures free trade in goods, where we have the largest balance of payments deficit, and fails in that objective in services, where we have our largest surplus. The future of the services sector would then depend on negotiating a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU, which would have to be far broader in scope than either Canada or Switzerland have been able to achieve.
I say to my Labour friends: when talking about services, do not imagine that this is just about protecting the interests of bankers—and when you talk about bankers, remember that they produce a lot of tax revenues that go towards the NHS and the welfare state. Services, where we excel, are much bigger than the City. Brexit threatens our position as a centre of TV and film distribution, our lawyers’ rights to represent clients in European courts, and the commercial strength of a whole range of services where free movement and the mutual recognition of qualifications are huge benefits to Britain—especially the ability to send highly qualified people on client assignments anywhere in the EU.
Free movement may be politically poisonous within the UK but it is the rock on which the business models of many of our most successful and advanced companies in digital, creative and professional services are built. Ending up as a member of the customs union would therefore be very much second best. Yet even that is threatened by the vanities of Dr Liam Fox, because being members of the customs union would greatly restrict our ability to cut new trade deals with the rest of the world. Dr Fox has convinced himself of this strange logic: it is in the national interest to forgo membership of the single market, which secures free trade for nearly half our exports, in return for the highly uncertain prospect of negotiating new British trade deals with the rest of the world, with all the complexities and political constraints that come with them. In my view, the so-called opportunities of Brexit are largely delusional vistas.
Similarly, we must stop talking nonsense about becoming an offshore Singapore, or a haven of social dumping, as many on the continent believe that the Government plan. Full participation in the single market on fair rules should be the aim. Corporate tax policy will be the big test. There is no way the EU will agree to our full participation in the single market if Great Britain, the second-largest market presently in the EU, sees itself as a Cyprus, an Ireland or a Luxembourg. Rather, we should be offering full co-operation with the EU to fight corporate tax avoidance.
People did not vote for these outcomes on 23 June. There is no mandate for making these choices. The leavers say that in the referendum they always made clear that Britain would be leaving the single market. Yes, they did say that—but at the same time they assured voters that Britain could have its cake and eat it and enjoy unrestricted free trade with the rest of Europe. The reason leave won on 23 June was that not enough people were convinced that there would be a real economic downside to leaving the EU. Therefore, they voted to “take back control” because they believed that it would be largely cost free.
However, we can see the downsides emerging already: a sharp sterling devaluation that will cut living standards in every year of this Parliament; widespread investment uncertainty; and a grave loss of tax revenues forecast by the OBR. For all those reasons, full participation in the single market must be the top national priority, and it is the job of the Prime Minister to show leadership in the national interest and spell out the realities to the Redwoods and Foxes on her own side. That message would echo positively around Europe and completely change the atmosphere for the Brexit negotiations, which I fear on the continent is rapidly becoming poisonous.
Many people on our Benches, here and in the other place, will say, “What about free movement? What about immigration? Haven’t the British people given a clear instruction to the political class—most of all to the Labour Party, with its claim to represent working people—that something must be done?”. I take that point with two crucial qualifications. First, any new policy must be based on clear evidence, not simple prejudice. As Hugh Gaitskell once famously wrote of Evan Durbin, the nature of social democratic politics is,
“the pursuit of truth to the bitter end”.
Secondly, we must never ever stigmatise migrants in the way that some leavers did. The rise in hate crime and social media abuse and the fact that many people feel they are no longer welcome in our country since 23 June is appalling and offends our basic values of equality and humanity. This is the slippery slope that leads to the end of tolerance and the end of an open society. But, yes, migration, both internal and external in the EU, must be better managed.
Free movement is not a uniquely British problem. Several member states accept the need for reform, including eastern Europeans, as long as we are prepared to continue to assist them financially with their economic development. Britain should have taken a lead on these questions in 2012, but that would have involved as a quid pro quo a greater willingness than the present Government were prepared to show to share the burdens of the refugee crisis. Regrettably, we did not take that lead and it may now be too late. However, the UK should still put its weight behind arguing for a Europe-wide rethink, not just British exceptionalism—although the EU’s current negotiations with the Swiss on free movement may give us a peg on which to hang our coat.
Nationally, we could do much more to manage migration better. Our national approach to it has fallen victim to the besetting British preference for laissez-faire. So let us have a bigger migration impact fund that acts quickly, and let us bring in proper enforcement of minimum wages and labour standards. However, I believe that the core of the problem in Britain lies in our highly flexible labour market, with too many businesses locked into a dependence on low-skilled migrant labour. Let us explore how we might reregulate our labour market, particularly where the problems are worst—in agriculture, food processing, hospitality and social care. We should consider setting up statutory tripartite bodies, on the models of the wages councils and training boards, with responsibility for raising skills, productivity and wages in those sectors. And why not give such bodies a mandate to recruit young trainees from parts of our country where decent training places and job opportunities are in short supply? Employer reliance on migrant low-skilled labour needs to be cut—but, in my view, it will take a dose of market interventionism to achieve it.
Finally, we must present ourselves as sincere, committed partners of our friends and allies across the Channel. Britain has so much to give on security and defence. I accept that the Government stress their commitment to NATO, and NATO remains crucial—but NATO is not enough. In today’s circumstances, of all circumstances, we cannot give the impression that we will prioritise the United States over our allies and friends in Europe. I want to believe President Obama’s assurances about President-elect Trump, but I fear that, for once, Obama’s fundamental decency and respect for the office he holds are obscuring his real fears. I really want to be proved wrong—but to be seen to kow-tow to a maverick Trump will only isolate Britain further in Europe.
The common security challenges that Britain and Europe face are broader than defence in the classic NATO sense: failed states, religious extremism, terrorism, climate change, the social and economic consequences of desertification in Africa, and structural pressures from tens of millions of young unemployed people in the emerging world searching for a better life in Europe. We need a common partnership with our European friends to address these questions. Outside the EU, that will be far more difficult.
Does Brexit then require a fundamental rethinking of the European security architecture? Perhaps it does. How about a revival of a western European union, with decision-making executives consisting of Britain, the big EU member states and the highest-level representation of NATO and the EU institutions? I do not have a clear answer—but, my goodness, I wish we had an Ernie Bevin at the Foreign Office and not a Boris Johnson.
We have to ask ourselves where we want to end up as a result of Brexit. Today, Britain is a European power with some considerable global reach. By all means, let us be global, but let us not delude ourselves. This nation has never for long been able to cut itself off from the continent—and when it has tried, the results have been disastrous, as with the two world wars in the last century. The best option for Brexit Britain is that we remain a European nation with the closest possible economic and security ties with our European friends and neighbours. That is the reality of Britain’s position in the world. With Brexit—and despite Brexit—let it remain our patriotic destiny as well.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for her characteristic graciousness in giving me the time to respond to the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on his maiden speech. We are looking forward to many more of them as he educates us about our future security and foreign policy relationships with the European Union. As always in these debates, as the opening speaker one puts a lot of effort into one’s speech, thinks that one has a clear position that one is advocating and then hears all kinds of wonderful contributions that mean that one has to think again. There is a lot to ponder in what people have said here.
Perhaps I could say a couple of things briefly. On my side of the House, several of my noble friends have talked about the possibility of a second referendum. Personally, I do not rule that out, but it is far too early in the process to see whether it is a runner; if the Government achieve the success that they promise, it may well not be. I tabled this debate in an honest wish that the Brexit negotiations go well for Britain. I put a lot of emphasis on economic questions because whether or not we have a successful economy—the single market is vitally tied up with that—will be crucial to whether we are an outward-looking nation. My fear is that if we have the quick, hard Brexit which my noble friend Lord Desai appears to favour, we would suffer a major economic shock that would make the problems of populism and being inward-looking even more problematic in our country than they are now. If we want to be confident, we therefore have to get the economics right. That is a key facilitator in us playing the strong security, foreign policy and defence role in the world that I believe Britain should play.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Chandos that the continental partnership report is a very interesting proposition, which I would like to see taken seriously by government, here and on the continent. The problem—this is certainly not a reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—is the way in which the Government are presently charging around Europe, making statements about how we are going to have our cake and eat it, treating the whole process with disrespect and demonstrating a lack of sensitivity to the fact that we are the people walking away from our partners of 40 years and causing very big problems for them. Unless the Government show more sensitivity in their approach to these negotiations, we will end up in a very difficult situation and with a hard Brexit—and we will not end up with a happy Britain. On that note, I commend the Motion that I tabled.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Liddle Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I will make two quick points in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was rhetorically brilliant, as his contributions in this House so often are. However, his brilliance displayed a weakness on the part of those who want to leave the EU: they are frightened of the argument about what the alternatives to membership really are. That is why he is so reluctant to support the amendment.
There are two points which have not been made in this debate about the wrong assumption, made by many people who favour leaving the EU, that the UK would be able to retain most of the advantages of EU membership without actually being a member of it. That is what one hears from UKIP and the leave campaign. I question this on two grounds. The first ground is the politics of us voting to leave. In the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, which I want to succeed, many member states will make concessions to Britain that they do not actually want but make because they want to keep Britain in the EU. The politics of this is that there will be a great deal of bitterness if they have gone a mile to help the UK and we then vote to leave.
What is more, there is a significant—20% to 30%—anti-European element in the politics of many EU countries today. The last thing in the world that the leaders of other EU countries are going to want to see is Britain able to negotiate a good deal from being out, because that will just strengthen the voices of the right and left populists in their own countries who are arguing to get out of the EU. So the politics will be extremely difficult for us if we vote to leave.
My second point is about free trade. I agree with all the arguments that our bargaining position is not as strong as is often claimed. However, a lot of this debate ignores the modern facts of free trade. It is not about tariffs and access, as it used to be. It is about sharing the same rules as the people with whom you are trading. That is why most banks in the City of London want to remain in the EU: if they do not share the rulebook with people on the continent, they will not be able to trade in euro business. I do not know how big an element of their business that is, but it is certainly substantial. A friend of mine in Brussels told me what happened in the recent fracas about Volkswagen. The initial proposals to deal with the problem of diesel engines, which the French and Germans had cooked up together, would actually have meant that half of Ford engines could not have been exported to the continent because the British methods of production would not have been compliant. It was only because we were in the room and making the arguments that we could do a deal with our partners to make sure that the rules would not disadvantage British-based manufacturing.
So it is about rules and, if we want to trade with the EU, either we have got to stick with their rules and all the talk about repealing regulations is complete nonsense, or we abandon the rules and we do not get the trade. That fundamental point is why the British public need to have it objectively explained what the consequences of leaving the EU would be, and what the nature of our future relationship with the EU would be.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
I pick up the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for saying that to export to the EU we would have to meet the rules it imposed. Of course we would. It is the same position as America, India, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil or any other country that is not in the EU—or, for that matter, Switzerland, which manages to export more per head to the EU than we do and it is not in the EU. It is not a convincing argument at all. We already meet the rules now with our motor car exports. Why should that change? If change is required we will, of course, have to change—and so will other manufacturers who are outside the EU.
Lord Liddle
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, defines British sovereignty as simply having to accept whatever changes in the rules the EU makes without our participation.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I do not normally find myself in close agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but on this occasion what he said was absolutely correct. If the British people speak in a referendum, Parliament must follow and the United Kingdom will inevitably, in the circumstances which he envisaged, be leaving the European Union. I would very much regret that: it would be contrary to the interests of this country. However, were the electorate to make that decision I would hope, as would others who campaign for Britain to stay in, that we would negotiate the most favourable deal possible with the European Union. Our loyalty to this country would be unaffected by the result and would remain a primary consideration.
However, it is absurd to suppose that we will not enter into a period of very considerable uncertainty. Anybody who knows anything at all—and noble Lords know a great deal—knows that the worst possible thing for an economy and investment is uncertainty. It may be that we would negotiate a favourable agreement in the end, but there would be a period when a great deal would be unknown and people would be very reluctant to invest. I hesitate to talk about the Scottish referendum in the presence of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but there was evidence in Scotland, as there was in Canada on an earlier occasion, that a referendum casts a shadow ahead of it which deters investment. If there was a period of considerable uncertainty at the end of the referendum before the outcome was known, the economy would suffer, even if one was optimistic about the outcome.
European Union Referendum Bill
Lord Liddle Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
At the end of the day, the EU thinks that it is free to issue information. Information can take many different forms, and I do not see that there is anything that can be done. The Minister has already said that we cannot actually stop the EU financing activities because they are all done in the name of information—and what is the difference between information and propaganda?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Is the noble Lord a regular reader of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail? Does he think that they provide objective, truthful information about the European Union?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I have to say that that is an entirely different issue.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
The noble Lord has intervened so let me answer his question. I think that the Daily Mail and the Daily Express have their own views, as do the Guardian and the Independent. We have a free press; it is up to them what they do. We are talking here about what the EU does to finance activities during this referendum.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, does the noble Lord believe it is wrong for the EU to provide factual information about what it does when in large sections of our press, which are foreign owned, lies are printed about the EU virtually every day?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, will know well, factual information from the EU amounts to it advertising that it is spending inordinate amounts of money on different interest groups of one sort or another around the UK, as if this were all manna from heaven: “Gosh, you’re lucky, the EU has decided to spend some money on you”. What it does not bother to tell people is that it is their own money.
The great problem that Lord Joseph had when he was in the Thatcher Government was to persuade Ministers to talk not about “public money” that they were being so generous with, but about “taxpayers’ money”. He managed to hold that line for a time with the Conservative Cabinet, but quite quickly it drifted off and we got back to Ministers constantly talking about how incredibly generous they were being with “government money”, as if all this stuff came from heaven. Of course, half the government money that we have now is borrowed anyway. It is an absurd mentality to think that people can be generous with other people’s money and get credit for it. Why should they, when it is actually the money that they have taken off the people of this country? We must live in the real world.
Amendment 18 is about purdah. The problem with purdah, as we all know, is that the Government are arguing that they have to allow the normal functions of government to continue. Obviously that is quite justifiable, but the point of my amendment is to restrict what can be done with regard to purdah. To return once more to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s argument that this has to be seen to be a fair referendum, our worry is that we should not, as we did in the Scottish referendum on independence, suddenly have an enormous initiative from the Government to try to swing the vote because the polls are going the wrong way. We do not want some great initiative from the EU saying how incredibly generous or wonderful it has been in order to try to swing the vote here.
Lord Liddle
I moved an amendment on this in Committee, partly in jest. If the noble Lord wants a fair referendum, why does he not persuade his friends in the Conservative newspapers to give equal space to people who are in favour of our membership and people who are against?