European Council Decision: EUC Report

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

This debate has been a curious experience for me because, having listened to the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am perhaps a much stronger supporter of what the Government are doing than I think I ought to be. I believe that the Government are right to support this measure and I think that both noble Lords are completely wrong in thinking that somehow it would be in the British national interest to pull the house of the euro down, causing currency chaos and economic disruption on a huge scale in order to pursue their own hatred and fanaticism in their opposition to the European Union.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My suggestion was not that we should pull the eurozone down but that it is not necessary for us to take these measures to bolster the eurozone at all.

[Lord Liddle]

Of course I accept what the noble Lord says, but the implication was that the euro would come tumbling down, and I think that the economic consequences for us, with our trade and economic links to Europe, would be very serious. Further, the instability that would be created by a German mark soaring and a Greek drachma plunging would be too horrendous to contemplate.

What I want to do in my brief remarks is to declare that I support what is being proposed, but with two qualifications. First, what we have seen tonight is an excellent example of parliamentary accountability. This motion has been put to the House and, before it is approved by the European Council, we have an opportunity to say whether we agree with it or not. If I may anticipate the debate tomorrow on the EU Bill, this is in sharp contrast to what will be proposed under the new arrangements. What we are going to have there is a requirement for the Government somehow to argue that, under the proposed criteria, a referendum would not be justified for this measure. I am totally opposed to multiple referenda and will be arguing that tomorrow, but on the basis that the Government are arguing, it seems extraordinary to suggest that what we have before us with the European stability mechanism is somehow not a big extension of competence and is not significant. It is extremely significant.

Indeed, I would argue that what is happening in the eurozone at the moment is as significant a development for the strengthening of its governance as we have had since the establishment of the single currency and the single market in the 1980s. It is a far more significant development than the Treaty of Lisbon or the constitutional treaty that preceded it. It is for European integration very significant.

One cannot argue that this is of no relevance to Britain. For one thing, the ESM will be one pillar of a new regime of economic governance that includes macroeconomic surveillance and a competiveness pact. I do not argue that these measures are perfect; in fact, they are far less than ideal and this should be very much work in progress. However, integration of economic governance is certainly proceeding.

The Government make the crucial error of thinking of this question in terms of a transfer of power to Brussels from the United Kingdom. They argue that, because Britain is not in the eurozone, there is no transfer of power. However, what in fact is going on within the whole of the European Union at the moment is a very big shift in the balance of power, with the likely creation of a eurozone bloc that has a much bigger influence on the economic policies of the whole of the EU. It is about this important change in the balance of power that we should really be concerned, instead of going on about transfers of power.

Perhaps I may cite one example that is directly related to the subject of the ESM: the issue of financial regulation. If we have a sovereign debt crisis in a eurozone member country and it is necessary for there to be a restructuring of the debt, it will logically lead to problems in the banks which own the bonds that have lost much of their face value. That will in turn require new rules on the capital adequacy of banks and on banking mergers. If there are to be in future stages restructurings of Greek and Irish sovereign debt, there will also be grave consequences for financial regulation and the banking system. We are exposing ourselves to real loss of influence on these matters, because it will be a eurozone bloc that decides in terms of its own interests what those regulations should be. We will turn up at the Council of Finance Ministers with that decision in practice having been taken, with majority voting there in the Council of Finance Ministers, and with very little opportunity for us to influence it. When one thinks that the City of London is one of our key interests, one realises that this is quite a serious threat to us.

Of course, the new regime is not ideal and it is work in progress—I dare say that my noble friend Lord Eatwell will say something about this. My strong view is that if something is not ideal we should use our maximum influence to try to change it. Obviously, there is no immediate prospect of us joining the euro and becoming part of the ESM, but we should try to involve ourselves intimately in the discussions that are taking place. I am worried that the Government, as far as I can see, are not doing that. Mrs Merkel, as I understand it, made an offer to the British Government whereby they could be part of the competitiveness pact that she was trying to negotiate. Apparently the British Government have said that they do not wish to be part of that pact, whereas Poland, which is equally not a member of the euro area, is anxious not to be excluded from these decisions on economic governance questions which go wider than the eurozone.

There is a significant problem here for the United Kingdom and the Government ought to recognise this. They should also recognise that something of fundamental importance to our economic future and, indeed, to our sovereignty is happening here.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, this is the first time that a Motion of this sort has been debated in your Lordships’ House. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, creating a precedent, although I am not entirely clear how long the precedent will last with respect to the discussion that we will have tomorrow. However, it clearly is important that we should define the criterion that we ought to apply to our assessment of the Motion.

The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum suggests that they have clearly applied the criterion of the “UK national interest”. In support of this Motion to give the green light to the establishment of the ESM, the memorandum states emphatically:

“We therefore support this draft proposal to amend the Treaty to make clear that the euro area Member States can establish a permanent ESM. The UK will directly benefit”—

directly benefit—

“from increased stability of the euro area brought about by the ESM, without being part of the new mechanism or having any obligations under it”.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, repeated at some length the idea that this is directly in Britain’s benefit. Indeed, so important is the ESM deemed to be to the UK that, as the Explanatory Memorandum tells us, and as the Minister confirmed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer eagerly proposed UK participation in the design of the mechanism—participation which has apparently taken place.

This repeated emphasis on the importance of the ESM to the UK and of UK participation in the design process sits rather uncomfortably with the other theme of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“The ESM established by the proposed treaty change will be set up by the euro area countries for euro area countries with no financial liability on the non-euro area Member States or the EU budget. There are therefore no direct financial implications associated with agreeing the draft decisions to amend the TFEU to establish the ESM”.

So on the one hand we have a direct benefit, but on the other hand there are no direct financial implications.

It is, of course, entirely possible to hold these seemingly contradictory positions at the same time. For example, the policies of the United States Government have a direct economic impact on the UK, and yet we have no responsibility for their financial implications. However, the key difference here is that we do have a direct responsibility—we have actually participated in the design of this mechanism. This Government have both a primary and a secondary responsibility for the mechanism agreed: primarily because we participated in its design; and secondarily because, as has frequently been acknowledged, the performance of the ESM is of direct national interest to the UK.

In his introduction the Minister told us nothing whatever about the ESM itself. It really is essential that, when he sums up, he remedy that failure and answer some of the pertinent questions about the impact of the ESM on the UK. He quoted my noble friend Lord Harrison, saying that we should support a stable and prosperous eurozone, which of course we should; but when my noble friend wrote that letter in February he could not have known what we know now. In the early hours of the morning of Saturday, 13 March, eurozone leaders reached agreement on the structure of the ESM, to be ratified by the European Council this week. The assessment of whether the agreement of 13 March is or is not in the best interests of the UK is the key issue and it should be based on one clear criterion: will it work? That is the fundamental question, which the Minister has not even bothered to address this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

All I can say is that this is how the debate has gone and these are the decisions that have been taken by those in the eurozone, which does not include us, who decided to go ahead and move from the EFSM to the ESM. The noble Lord has a different opinion of the financial aspects and is a financial expert of no small degree, so he may be right. However, that is not the view taken by the German Government or by the other Governments of the eurozone area.

My noble friend Lord Lamont also asked about the competitiveness pact. I can tell him that the latest draft of the pact makes it clear that:

“The Pact will fully respect the integrity of the Single Market”.

I am then advised that non-eurozone countries—such as us, among others—have been invited to join the pact and that we are assessing whether we should do so. I add that many of these points tonight point in the same direction and that we are really getting into the issues which we will be discussing on the new EU Bill tomorrow, when we shall have its Second Reading.

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord said that the Government were still considering whether to join the competitiveness pact. Is that the position: that this matter is still open?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is different from what the noble Lord said, so he is not quite right that that is the position. I was going on to say that under the provisions of the EU Bill, which has its Second Reading tomorrow, any question of a movement of competence or powers from the UK to the European Union arising from any of these things is subject to the most rigorous procedures—in many cases, a referendum procedure but certainly an Act of primary legislation—which make it more or less impossible for them to be, as it were, slipped by or to be involved in any kind of competence creep. That is the position in answer to my noble friend Lord Lamont.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, took a familiar position and did not think that we should be propping up the eurozone at all. I admire his concern for the German taxpayer, as he is clearly worried about our German friends and the amount of tax that they might have to pay if liabilities arise. He asked if we were setting up a transfer union. My judgment—this is from outside because we are not a member—would be that the eurozone members are not setting up a transfer union because that would require a far bigger budget at the centre than anything that operates under the present European Union organisation and rules. I think that the answer is no, but really that is a question that was posed by German Bundestag Members and answered by the German Government.

Latin America

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his kind remarks and I am delighted to deliver my maiden speech in this debate, which I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has pushed so hard to have.

Before my introduction on Monday, I felt that I sort of knew the House of Lords quite well. Until his death two years ago, my father-in-law, George Thomson, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, had been a Member for many years. My brother-in-law, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, speaks for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench from time to time. When it comes to the debate on the composition of the House, if I am not exactly strongly in support of the hereditary principle we have at least tried to keep it in the family. For good measure, my history tutor at Oxford, my noble friend Lord Morgan, is also a new colleague, which I am delighted about.

Still, on Monday, I was rather like a nervous school boy—the 11 year-old on my first day at Carlisle grammar school with all the fears of the mysterious rituals and initiation rites that were to follow. My nervousness has been much allayed by the kindness and warmth with which I have been greeted—not just by my fellow Peers, but from the House staff whose courtesy and helpfulness in dealing with new Members is quite wonderful. I want to put on record my heartfelt thanks to them.

Some may be surprised that I have chosen to make my maiden speech in a debate on Latin America. I spent 10 years of my early life in local government as a councillor in Oxford and then Lambeth. I remain a firm believer in local democracy and am against overcentralisation. I am passionate about economic development of the regions. As a lad from Cumberland whose father was a railway clerk and grandfather a miner, it is matter of great pride to me to be the chair of our local economic partnership, Cumbria Vision, and I hope to join a strong Cumbrian contingent voicing the needs of Cumbria in this House.

From my work in No 10 and Brussels, I care deeply about the future of the European Union. I believe that all of Europe, Britain included, is the winner if we can work together to build a strong, integrated and dynamic single market, revitalise a social model to which many in the rest of the world aspire, and become an effective force for good in our new multipolar world.

That brings me to Latin America. I was brought up on Tip O’Neill’s famous political adage, “All politics is local”, but I now believe that all politics is also global. The task is to build a new politics of sustainable globalisation. Think how the banking crisis, immigration and terrorism shaped the debates at the recent general election. Think what the coalition Government have decided in the past week or so. I am not trying to make a party point but simply wish to offer a reflection. They have no alternative but to obey the dictates of financial markets to bring down the public deficit quickly. In other words, we have no sovereignty as a Government or a people to challenge the need for 25 per cent cuts in our main public services. That is what Latin America suffered at the hands of the IMF under the Washington consensus in the 1980s and 1990s. We all have to strive somehow for a better global way.

I first became interested in Latin America as a result of an initiative that Tony Blair and President Clinton took to set up an international network of progressive centre-left leaders in which key Latin American countries took a keen interest. The think tank, Policy Network, that I now chair and which was chaired previously by my noble friend Lord Radice, is about helping to build that progressive network. In 2003, we had a conference in London which Presidents Lagos of Chile, Kouchner of Argentina and Lula of Brazil came as honoured guests. In the past three years, I have twice been to events led by the Chileans and President Bachelet.

For progressives, Latin America has made impressive strides in the past decade. Democracy has replaced dictatorship, the ballot box and the military junta, and remarkable social progress has been achieved. While the Governments of progressive Latin America are not slaves to the market, they have come to terms with the market and shown how they can redistribute its rewards in progressive ways. When Pinochet left office in Chile, 40 per cent of Chileans lived below the poverty line. Now the figure is only 12 or 13 per cent. The number of young people going to university in the past 20 years has risen from 10 per cent to 40 per cent. When the right-wing candidate for president won the election this year, there was a peaceful transition marred only by the calamity of that awful earthquake.

In a way, the Latin American progressives are the perfect exemplars of my noble friend Lord Giddens’s third way. In foreign policy, they do not wish to be the lackeys of the United States. They are never going to sign up to some modern version of the Monroe doctrine, and they may even be a bit wary of President Obama's more sympathetic multilateralism, as we see from Brazil's recent vote in the Security Council on sanctions against Iran. Domestically, however, they are searching for means of social progress that avoid the painful injustices and extremes of American free-market capitalism.

In my experience, that makes them very interested in the European model. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, that they have not made a lot of progress beyond the nation state, but I have found many Latin Americans who are interested in the possibilities of regional integration on the European pattern and are trying to learn from our experience. I believe that Europe has a real opportunity for influence there, but, as in so many areas, the European Union has yet to fulfil that potential. Part of that is about getting our act together in Europe and recognising that as nation states alone, we have limited power in the new world that is emerging. We have to get our act together. That is particularly true in diplomatic representation, given the huge economies which are having to be made in the British embassy network as a result of the present financial crisis.

When we speak the language of multipolarity, we as Europeans must recognise that that means a shift in the balance of power in the world. Let us take the IMF. If we are to tackle the global imbalances that still threaten financial stability, we desperately need to bring all the emerging big economies of the world on board within the IMF structure to make it truly representative of the world as it now is. The EU member states’ insistence—this is not just a problem of Britain, it is a problem of all the big member states—on maintaining their gross over-representation on the IMF's councils stands in the way of that necessary power shift

Let us take free trade and Doha. The Latin Americans hesitate to lower their tariffs on Europe's high value-added exports while their food exports are denied access to European and American markets. Brazil is hugely competitive in agricultural products such as sugar and beef, but the US and EU are both reluctant to adjust to that, although the overall impact on our growth prospects and economies would be favourable.

Finally, let us take climate change. We simply cannot lecture the Latin Americans on their growing carbon emissions and destruction of forests while we in the industrialised world fail to tackle the problems of industrialisation that are our legacy and our responsibility. The EU must make itself the global leader in low-carbon transition. I believe that that would be a sustainable platform for recovery.

In conclusion, it is a great privilege to speak in this House for the first time. If I may express a personal regret, it is that my parents narrowly missed being alive to see it. I hope that for all my time in this place, I will continue to speak truly to the values of social democracy and internationalism that they imbued in me.