European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not think I will follow the noble Lord, although I am grateful to him. The Norwegians are not happy with their relationship with the European Union, and no wonder their Prime Minister told us last week that it would not do for us. I entirely agree with him. Before the electorate are asked to decide whether we should leave the Union, they clearly need to know where we would land if we did, what new relationship with the rest of Europe the Government envisage and how certain they are that it would be obtainable—hence my amendment.

If it is not the Norwegian model, what is it? The Swiss model is clearly worse from our point of view and probably not on offer. The Swiss have individual, sectoral and bilateral agreements with the EU. However, they do not extend to services, our major export, and would take many years to negotiate. Both sides—the EU and Switzerland—agree that the arrangement is unsatisfactory, complex and unwieldy.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

Why do the noble Lord and other people keep referring to the “Swiss model” or the “Norway model”? They are not relevant to this country. What we want is a British model. We are of the size and the importance, including the historic importance, to be quite different from, and to negotiate a much better agreement than, either of those two small—but highly successful—countries.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I must ask the noble Lord not to be carried away by the impetuosity of youth. I will come to his point in a moment. The Council, with the UK concurring, agreed 18 months ago that the relationship with Switzerland should be put on a new institutional basis and be overseen by the Commission under the judicial control of the European Court of Justice—although there would not be a Swiss Commissioner or a Swiss judge in the European Court of Justice. That would be a more onerous regime and even less satisfactory to us than the arrangement agreed 20 years ago for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. One could look at the Turkish model, but there you have no access to the single market at all. There is a customs union, but that means that Turkey has to apply EU customs tariffs against third countries and has no say in setting them. The Turks find the relationship highly unsatisfactory; it would be doubly unsatisfactory for us.

A free trade agreement or an association agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU would certainly be possible, and there are plenty of precedents for it. I do not think it would be particularly difficult to negotiate, so I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, to that extent, but it would not provide the access to the single market that I thought was the object of the exercise from our point of view. Let us bow to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on this: if the EU were to decide that it needed to make an exception for us—I do not think it would, as so many would want to follow suit if it did—and gave us what we sought, its price would undoubtedly be our agreement to follow its labour market rules, health and safety rules, product standards, consumer protection laws and technical specifications. It will not agree that our goods should freely circulate in its single market if they do not meet EU standards. That is not an unreasonable position, and that is the one the EU would take. We would of course have lost our say in the setting of these standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not recognise the figure of 4.5 million. Maybe the noble Lord is assuming that exports that did not come to Britain, because we erected a protectionist barrier against them, would not go somewhere else in the world. It is a static analysis.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

The noble Lord mentioned that we export 50% to the EU. That is a figure I have not heard before. It is usually 40%. Can he confirm the 50%?

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I have read the amendment, which would restrict the operation of the Bill to matters of urgency. That is what it is about. I thought that the Bill was about major transfers of power, not just little changes to ongoing, day-to-day matters in the EU; it is about major transfers of competence or powers. Whenever you are transferring powers from this country to another institution, it ought not to be done in haste. There should not be urgency about it.

Those sort of matters, those great matters, should be decided only once all the issues concerned have been examined by the Government and by Parliament; and then by referendum. Why do we want an urgency clause? We cannot afford to have an urgency clause when we are transferring powers from our country to another organisation. I cannot support the amendment, although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, feels that it would be helpful to the Bill. I do not think that it would be helpful to the Bill, because it would undermine its whole purpose, which is to ensure that when this country transfers major powers elsewhere, there has been proper consideration over a proper period by the proper authorities, including the Government, Parliament and the people.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I need to make a rather nerdish point.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Oh no!

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will be very upset. I accuse myself of being nerdish, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that I can be considered in the same class as Mr William Cash.

We are talking about an amendment to Clause 3. Clause 3 is about the accelerated, simplified procedure. I do not know why we have Clause 3 separate from Clause 2, but we do, and we are debating it. The simplified procedure cannot be used for the transfer of competences. That is what the treaty states. Article 48(6) states that the decisions referred to in the second paragraph,

“shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties”.

We are talking about urgency and the use of the competences that the treaties have conferred. We are talking about urgency because that is the nature of the simplified procedure. It was invented to move fast in situations where we might want to. It avoids the convention, it avoids the full paraphernalia after Parliament—you still have to consult Parliament under Article 48(6), but that can be quite quick.

This is a modest amendment, unlike the previous amendment on which we voted, which was bigger. This is a modest amendment because it simply suggests that the urgency condition might be written into Clause 3, on the simplified treaty revision procedure, which is about urgent treaty revision and not about competence. It cannot be used to confer competences on the Union from the member states.

It seems to me appropriate and modest to say that, when we are dealing with treaty revisions or decisions taken under Article 48(6)—which, by definition, will happen only in a hurry—we should be able to have an accelerated procedure here in this country. We might accept that the general view was correct: this was an emergency and we needed to move fast. Of course, if you did not accept that, you would have said “No” in Brussels and the accelerated procedure would have stopped, because it still requires unanimity. By definition, you are in a situation where people have thought, “We haven’t got the time to do the whole shooting match”. This is important. The Government think it is in the UK interest—they voted for it. Who would decide whether the urgency consideration applied? It is a question asked in this debate. The House would decide. Parliament would decide. If this provision was in the Bill, the Government would have to explain whether the urgency procedure, in their view, applied. Parliament would vote on that. This is a parliamentary democracy—that is where the decision should be made.

I do not see anything wrong with this amendment. It seems to me that it is appropriate—particularly appropriate—to this clause. I supported the previous amendment—the bigger amendment—which would have written it also into Clause 2, alongside the significance condition, which sadly is still missing in Clause 2, for reasons that I do not understand. Putting it in Clause 3, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, proposes, is absolutely appropriate and I support the amendment.

The Minister commented with approval, as would I, on the evidence that Sir John Grant gave to the Commons committee. Sir John Grant made two points that the Minister quoted with approval. I approve of them too—although, as the Minister delicately pointed out, Sir John is a more recent permanent representative in Brussels than me. There may have been a faint connotation in the Minister’s remark that I might be a bit fuddy-duddy or out of date. I accept that; it is perfectly possible, and Sir John Grant is a very brilliant man.

Sir John said that he saw no chance of serious treaty amendment in the next few years. I agree with him for a whole lot of reasons. Nobody in Brussels wants it; the UK Government have said that they are not going to have it; and it is in a coalition agreement. That seems to me to be fairly conclusive, so I think Sir John Grant was on pretty safe ground with that prediction. He also spoke of the unlikelihood—and the Minister quoted him—of the passerelles being used in the near future. I agree. That seems to me to be implausible too.

What the Minister did not mention—I cannot remember whether Sir John Grant did—is the much more likely scenario in which, some time in the next decade, something will cause people to say, “Jeepers, we are going to have to change something. This is clearly a case for the accelerated procedure”. Things do happen in the world, things change, and the chances are—I do not think this is very likely in the near future, though the monetary example is fresh in our minds—that some time in the next decade there will be a need seen by most people, possibly by us as well, for a change, and if it is to be done quickly then the chances are that people will use Article 48(6) procedure.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention.