European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Anne Main and William Cash

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

The motion cannot be carried until 12 April at the earliest. That means that the Prime Minister is obliged at some stage to seek an extension, but she is not obliged to do so immediately. Unless she does so on 12 April and it is agreed before 11 pm that day, the United Kingdom is out. It will be “Leave, leave, leave, leave.”

Clause 1(6) and (7) are I suppose intended to deal with a situation where the European Council meets on 10 April and seems to volunteer to offer an extension to a certain date. I mentioned earlier—perhaps in a point of order—the role of the European Council in all this. The reality is that the procedure being followed puts the ball back in the European Council’s court. It is possible that nobody will be sensible enough to veto this extension, although they have the power to do so and I trust that one or other of them, or perhaps several, will.

My objection to this arrangement is contained in the European Scrutiny Committee report we put forward last March—a whole year and one month ago. We raised grave concern because the European Council, which is driving a lot of the negotiations, set out the terms of reference and the guidelines and the sequencing. The fact is that the Government gave in on all that and supplicated and went along on bended knee to the European Council and asked, “How much can you possibly let us get away with? What can we be allowed to do that you will agree with?” There were also all the monstrous negotiations conducted by Olly Robbins, who appeared in front of my Committee, and Tim Barrow and others. The reality is that submitting ourselves under this Bill to the decision-making processes and the cosh of the European Council is not only completely humiliating to this country, but has put us in an impossible situation under the withdrawal agreement.

Article 4 of the agreement—which is directly relevant to everything we are discussing here because it is about the governance of the European Union in relation to the UK on leaving—stipulates in terms of the UK that we will be subjugated to the decision making of the Council of Ministers.

I hope somebody on the Opposition Front Bench will take this on board. The Council of Ministers will be making laws for probably up to four years, when this House, as I said the other day, will be politically castrated in relation to the European treaties, which will have entire competence over us and all laws. We will not be able to pass a single law in contravention of them, and our courts will not be able to defend our voters—our taxpayers—from any of the decisions taken while we are put at the mercy of our competitors during the transitional period, however long that may be.

I have already made the point that the transitional period could cost £90 billion; I do not know the sum, because we do not know what date will be settled on yet. What I do know is that this House will be subjugated—completely neutralised—in the transitional period. I see that the Minister is shaking his head. I invite him to appear in front of my Select Committee and answer on that; I would like to cross-examine him on the question of who will be governing this country during that period, because it certainly will not be this Parliament, I can tell him that.

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern, which is why I tabled my amendment, that the House seems to happily think it can put a date on this Bill and the Prime Minister will go off and secure the date, but the House seems to have lost sight of the fact that we will probably have to take what we are offered—or maybe not be offered anything at all? This Bill seems to me to assume that the European Parliament will take notice of what we wish to happen.

[Sir William Cash]

Absolutely; the idea of our subjecting ourselves to the European Council as well as to the European Parliament is about as humiliating as anybody could imagine. I suppose we are not supposed to say this but it happens to be true: we saved Europe twice in the last 100 years, yet we are now, as a result of this withdrawal agreement and these provisions, subjugating ourselves to the decisions taken by 27 other member states by majority vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I have heard it mentioned that the elections would cost £100 million, which is quite a lot of money for nothing. In some constituencies, as it happens, there have been turnouts of about 19%. European elections are a complete farce anyway. In fact, I think the European Parliament is a complete farce. Frankly, getting rid of the elections altogether would be a massive step in the right direction, and this Bill is the opportunity to do that.

[Mrs Main]

The public have had no real engagement in the process. I cannot imagine it would be good for democracy if we say to the public that these people will not be around for five minutes because we are all trying to get rid of them.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Anne Main and William Cash

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

How does my hon. Friend envisage the reports being scrutinised, and who does he think will sign them off before they are published?

[Sir William Cash]

I am confident that the European Scrutiny Committee will be looking at this carefully. During our examination of the renegotiations, we have been exercised by the desire to ensure that the Government do not just come forward with a final offer. The Minister knows what I mean. We do not want to be bounced by a final offer; we want to assess the negotiations as they progress. That is what we are doing, and what we will continue to do, because that is what our Standing Orders require us to do on behalf of the House of Commons. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention because it is important that the House not be bounced.

I spoke to, and received a note from, the Electoral Commission today. It regards the provision of the impartiality we would expect as beyond its own functions, which is extremely regrettable because it should have an opportunity to comment. My Committee will consider this matter carefully—the Minister knows what that means—and it is my clear assessment that any such report, if he could not guarantee it met the highest standards of impartiality and accuracy, would effectively mislead the British people. That is the test. If he tells me something along those lines, I will be prepared—

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Debate between Anne Main and William Cash

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

That is an important point, and I endorse very much what my hon. Friend has said.

The arrangements in the Act are effectively a stitch-up, just as they were when we first considered the Bill back in 2010. I am glad to note that section 7 contains a requirement for the Prime Minister to hold a review, and only MPs can sit on the Committee that will review this Act. The fact that the Lords had to insist on that provision demonstrates that the Government would not have got the Bill through had they not made that arrangement. The whole thing is effectively in suspension anyway, and it is therefore a natural consequence of the limbo that this unfortunate and unacceptable enactment has put in place that the Act is up for repeal, subject to what is decided in 2020. I believe that it should be reviewed much sooner than that, and I am speaking in this debate because I very much endorse the proposals of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

On 24 November 2010 I said—and I stand by this:

“What does such innovation say about the coalition? It certainly demonstrates its determination to stack the cards firmly in favour of the coalition and the Whips.”

I said the Act was

“not modernising, but is a reactionary measure. It is not progress, but a step backwards, along the primrose path, undermining the constitutional principles that have governed our conventions and been tested over many centuries. The proposal has been conjured out of thin air, for the ruthless purpose of maintaining power irrespective of the consequences…we are supposed to be “Working together in the national interest—”

that was the theme of the moment—

“I fear that on this Bill, on this matter, we are working together against the national interest.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 318-9.]

What are the consequences of what we are now considering? The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is still in place and it should be repealed. Clearly it will not be repealed before the end of this fixed term, but I wish to dwell on a number of points that have been raised. I freely acknowledge that some of these arguments, which have not been given general circulation, were put forward by Lord Norton of Louth. I mentioned him in an intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I hope that his Committee asked Lord Norton for his views, with which I entirely agree, and I will encapsulate them.

Lord Norton makes the point that there are real problems with the 2011 Act, and that fixed-term Parliaments limit rather than enhance voter choice. That is the real problem. I tabled an amendment on the confidence motion and the 14 days—I do not need to go into that now because it was not accepted although the vote was quite close with only about 50 in it. I tabled an amendment to the arrangements that were being proposed at the time, and it certainly evoked an interesting and lively debate. My concern was that the whole parade that would take place within the 14 days, including the confidence motion and its arrangements, would be very much governed by powerful whipping to ensure that people fell into line with what the Government wanted. I was concerned that there would be a constant stream of people walking up and down Whitehall, just as we saw on television screens when the coalition was being put in place, and that the people who would make the final decision on the final wording about the holding of a confidence motion—including an affirmation after 14 days that the House had confidence in the Government—would not only be driven by the Whips, but would exclude the voters. Surely that is the real point. Why are we here? Who elects us? It is not our House of Parliament or our Government: it is the voters’. If things have gone completely awry and there is a case for an early election, as prescribed by the Act, the simple principle is that we should go back to the voters. We should not have a stitch-up within the Government, with the Whips making certain that people vote accordingly.

Fixed-term Parliaments limit rather than enhance voter choice. The outcome of one election cannot be undone until the end of the stipulated term. One Government could collapse and inter-party bargaining could produce another. In those circumstances, voters would be denied the opportunity to endorse what amounts to a new Government. That is a fatal position for us to have adopted. It is so undemocratic. Indeed, an unstable and ineffective Government may stagger on without achieving anything—we heard remarks to that effect from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell).

In 1991, the then Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Waddington put it thus:

“Is it better for a government unable to govern to go to the country to try to obtain a new mandate or for the same government to spend their time fixing up deals in which the unfortunate electorate has no say whatsoever? The people not the parties should decide who governs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1991; Vol. 529, c. 260.]

What wise words. In essence, fixed-term Parliaments rob the system of our hallowed flexibility and limit voter choice. That choice is limited by this Act.

Although the policy of the Liberal Democrats was for four-year Parliaments—I concede that—agreement was reached quickly in May 2010 for a five-year term, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who has written about that period, indicated that the object of the Act was to allow time to implement plans before worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. But five-year terms mean that the voters have fewer opportunities than before to go to the polls, and most post-war Parliaments have not gone their maximum length—now a five-year term is an absolute requirement.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by having a maximum length—which is not the norm, as most Parliaments lasted slightly under four years—the voters are denied the right to say what they think about policies and perhaps change their mind sooner rather than later?

[Sir William Cash]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes huge sense. These are simple questions. It is not an abstract, theoretical argument: it is about the simple question of whether, if the Government are ineffective or have gone badly wrong, they should be kept together with Sellotape because they satisfy the requirements to stay in a coalition—which is itself a stitch-up—under a provision in an Act of Parliament. As I wrote to the Prime Minister in my letter of 10 May 2010, that will work against the interests of voters and, effectively, the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I do not accept that proposition, but we do not have time to go through all the implications. I also completely repudiate his suggestion of a written constitution, and I suspect what the hon. Gentleman has just said has something to do with that.

The revelations by the right hon. Member for Yeovil about the coalition negotiations also implicitly accepted the argument that fixed-term Parliaments facilitate long election campaigns. That is where we are now. We are in an election campaign already, and questions arise about the amount of money that is being generated for financing purposes. That is a practical objection, the realities of which we are seeing as I speak. MPs are not expected to be very visible in Westminster during this Session, and I need only look at the Opposition Benches to see that only two Opposition Members are listening to this debate.

As was made clear in evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, knowing well in advance when the next election will take place encourages Governments to manipulate the economic cycle to their maximum advantage. That is a not unknown characteristic of Chancellors of the Exchequer, and we will have the autumn statement soon. But that substantial question has to be addressed.

The Act was a consequence of the need to build trust between coalition partners, and that is clear from all the books that have been written about the stitching up of the coalition. There was no agreement by the Conservative party that I would regard as proper agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, we had a meeting at which we were told certain things about what was going on between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and there was some doubt about that, if I may put it that way.

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public made no mention of their desire for a fixed-term Parliament when we were out campaigning?

[Sir William Cash]

That is true. There was no consultation or any attempt to discuss the implications for the voters. The negotiators were not particularly well versed in constitutional arrangements and the Act did not do what its short title suggests. In fact, the Act provides for semi-fixed terms. It includes provisions that allow early elections in certain circumstances, so to call it a fixed-term Parliament is a misnomer. Certain procedures would allow an early election. It is just that the circumstances that would enable that early election would be stitched up—as was the original coalition. They would enable early elections, but to what extent would the voters be involved? That is essentially undemocratic, and it also gives false hope that voter choice may not be as limited as under strict fixed-term provisions.

An election can be triggered if a vote of no confidence is carried against the Government and, within 14 days, a new Government is unable to carry a vote of confidence, or if two thirds of all MPs vote for an early election. It can also be triggered if everyone agrees on the need for an early election, but that seems extremely improbable. It is difficult to imagine when the idea of two-thirds of all MPs voting for an early election could ever be employed. Parties are hardly likely to vote for an early election if the opinion polls are not propitious. A Government could seek an early election by engineering a vote of no confidence in themselves, but, for heaven’s sake, if that were to be the case—I have had that put forward as quite a serious proposal—it is hardly likely to promote the reputation of, and confidence in, the parliamentary system.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act says nothing about what happens where a Government implode and then resign but the provisions in the Act are not triggered. We would then be in what has been described as the Belgian situation—Parliament continuing without a Government being in existence. I believe profoundly that the Act is an aberration. I think it is wrong. I think it is undemocratic. I think it requires repeal. I am aware that there is provision for it potentially to be repealed in 2020 under section 7, but it should happen much sooner, and as soon as possible.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Anne Main and William Cash

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I have made my position entirely clear on a number of occasions. We need to have something in the nature of a European Free Trade Association arrangement. We need an association of nation states. I am off to Lithuania the day after tomorrow to discuss these matters with the other 27 chairmen. The main topic of conversation now is democratic legitimacy, and it is not just in this country, it is not just in this Chamber, it is not just in the opinion polls, it is not just in the Eurobarometer, which has shown that trust in Europe has completely evaporated all over Europe. Wake up, I say. This is the fact, and it is happening. That is why we need to have a renegotiation. This is about trust. It is about allowing people to have government of a kind that responds to their own wishes, as expressed in general elections. That is why we cannot have two Governments and two Parliaments covering the same subject matter. It is complete, incoherent, absurd nonsense.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend has been tempted on numerous occasions by Opposition Members to debate the merits of in and out, but that is not what today is about. They will not say whether or not they will have a referendum. Today is about whether we will debate that with the public—not in here among ourselves, but take it out to the public. The Opposition want to turn today’s debate into a debate about the merits. I caution my hon. Friend about being seduced by Opposition Members. Make them answer whether they will vote for a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

I think my hon. Friend can be certain that I am not likely to be seduced, either by the Opposition or anybody else, for that matter. I simply say this: this is about the principle of a referendum.

I conclude with a simple statement: this is about trust. It is about trust in people. Because we are doing it through a Bill, as is required, we will give authority through Parliament to have a referendum. That is what this is all about. It is to give the British people their right to have their say. There is no question but that the Bill must pass, but it needs to be secured by a vote on both sides of the House. I am afraid that Opposition Members are neglecting their duty to their constituents if they continue to refuse to support the Bill.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Anne Main and William Cash

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I just wish to contribute a few words at the end of this debate, which I have listened to with interest. I am extremely concerned, but not because we are having to justify our Budget. I think that our Government are doing absolutely the right thing in cutting back on the deficit left to us by the previous Government, putting our house in order and putting the public first. That is where I would like to be: putting the public first. I do not wish there to be any consideration of whether Europe agrees that we are putting our public first or that we are putting European issues first. The European issues must be sorted out in Europe, among the people there. I do not feel that, as a sovereign Parliament, we should have to submit our Budget, regardless of whether the Opposition oppose or agree with it. It is up to us to decide the best for the British people and deliver the best for the British people—whether or not that causes “convergence” is neither here nor there.

The convergence that was perhaps envisaged in 1993 is not a route we would even want to go down now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, we are not sure what we are trying to converge with. I do not know why we are submitting documents that have the word “convergence” on the front of them, unless people are giving us marks out of 10 for converging with something.

[Mr Cash]

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the motion ends with the words

“which forms the basis of the UK’s Convergence Programme”?

The Government are therefore assuming that there will be a convergence. The questions are: with whom, about what, and for what purpose?

[Mrs Main]

As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why do we want to converge? I do not believe that the British public even know that we are converging, given that this is so lost in the mists of time.

European Council

Debate between Anne Main and William Cash

Thursday 8th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cash]

I am not going to take an intervention, because otherwise we will be here all afternoon—we are going to be anyway. I simply make the point that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has been quite specific in saying that there should not be any repatriation.

Within the electorates of individual countries, decisions can be taken to improve economic performance, develop small and medium-sized businesses and remove burdens on business, but that is not the European method. We may be driven into the formula of the notwithstanding arrangements, which was endorsed by the European Scrutiny Committee report on sovereignty and Parliament, because if the situation is so critical, we may have to override European regulation. However, the European method has locked people, by unanimous decisions, into a European system that cannot be changed, other than by renegotiation, which is almost impossible, or by a notwithstanding arrangement of the kind I have mentioned. Such oppressive regulations and rules are based on theoretical assumptions, as with the Lisbon agenda and the 2020 agenda, which have failed. The result is no growth.

We need to move away from centralisation and integration and back to decision making by Parliaments in the United Kingdom and elsewhere on behalf of the electorates of every country, and also into an association of nation states by co-operating. The other alternative is not to remain a member of the European Union at all. We are reaching that kind of critical point. We may not have got there yet, but we are getting to it.

Effectively, there would have to be a European Free Trade Association-type arrangement, with countries co-operating for free trade, competitiveness and growth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) so rightly said. However, that arrangement would also have to be based on democratic consent and not exclusively on majority block voting arrangements. That would provide free choice in the marketplace and at the ballot box.

That is the route to solving the problem, not imposing economic prescriptions and rules that have already been broken in the past—invariably—and that will not be observed in the future, because we are dealing with people and not economic or theoretical machines. That is fundamentally the difference between the British approach, which favours freedom of choice, and the eurocratic and—I say this with respect—the Germanic approach, which is rule-based and completely different.

This week’s meeting presents the Prime Minister with a historic moment, given the scale of the crisis, and it is essential that he takes the right path. We cannot have a fiscal union and be within the same treaty; that is a contradiction within itself. It is not a neat Russian doll; it is angular and impossible. Actually, it will not fit. A treaty within a treaty is a house divided against itself and because both are built on sand the result of going down this route will be even greater chaos, whether there are 17 or 27 countries involved. That is the problem and the European Court of Justice simply will not be able to deal with the overarching contradiction that those two competing arrangements provide.

Whether it is the eurozone 17 or the eurozone 27 that we are dealing with, the Prime Minister must recognise that the intentions expressed by the Germans and the French are to pursue a model that is entirely unsuited to the UK and that will create a fundamental change in the relationship between the EU and the UK. As I have said already, countries in the non-eurozone will vote for fiscal union, and that will be disastrous, not only with respect to the single market and how it affects the City of London but with respect to EU directives. I have looked at those directives, but I do not have time to go through all of them now. I simply say that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of directives in other areas of the treaty. For example, I have mentioned transport, but other areas include communications and energy—the list is endless. I have the list; in fact, the Library has provided it for me. It shows all those areas that are decided by qualified majority voting and the few areas that are decided by unanimity. The fiscal solidarity within the 17—or within the 27, if that is the way it goes—will use that QMV in all the areas, because that will be the new deal. So we are really in grave peril for those reasons.

I believe that the creation of another treaty within the framework of the existing treaties will deliberately target, for example, the City of London, and that is not just accidental. I remember saying before Mr Nicolas Sarkozy was elected—I say this with some respect to him—that he might prove to be a very dangerous president of France, and from our point of view that has been proved to be the case, much as I think he is looking after French interests. I cannot complain about that; we cannot try to defend our own interests and then say that the French should not look after themselves. The problem is the unreality—the Alice in Wonderland world—in which we are now living, where the French are allowed to renegotiate and throw down the gauntlet to us about what they want, but we are supposed to acquiesce and do nothing much about that. That is why this debate is so important and should be taking place on the Floor of the House.

The critical voting block against the UK will be extremely important. In fact, at the moment it is 213 votes to 130 between the eurozone 17 and ourselves. If it turns out that there is a eurozone 27, there will still be all the economic critical mass and consequently there will still be a voting arrangement against us. For that reason, we are in serious difficulties. Therefore I say that it is an illusion to imagine that that critical mass will not exist.

We also have to repatriate, although I have said repeatedly for months now—if not years—that the fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU is the key question, because when we have got that right we can also address the question of repatriation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in 2005 in the Centre for Policy Studies lecture, it is imperative that we repatriate social and employment laws.

Then there is the question of our current account deficit with the EU, which is minus £51 billion. That is up by something of the order of £35 billion or £40 billion in one year alone, and yet our trading surplus with the rest of the world is £15 billion. In other words, there is nothing wrong with our competitiveness; it is just that we cannot be competitive inside the European framework. Therefore we must deal with that issue too.

Effectively, that means that we must re-gear our relationships as a matter of fundamental foreign policy and economic policy. The Foreign Office and the Treasury, through No. 10, must re-gear our relationships with the rest of the world: with the Commonwealth countries, including India; with the United States, of course, which is not part of the Commonwealth and which must be addressed in its own right; and with all the other countries, including Malaysia, South Africa and other African countries, and south-east Asian countries. All those countries offer huge opportunities and many of them operate on the basis of British commercial law and British contracts, adapted indigenously to provide the basis of their legal system and constitutional arrangements. We can be enormously optimistic about the future if we go down that route, not abandoning our trade with the EU, but ensuring that we get a proper balance in our relationship with the EU and putting the emphasis in the right place.

We are told that 3 million jobs are at stake in our trading relationships with the EU. Nobody is suggesting that we would not continue to trade with the EU, but the problem is that the other EU countries have no growth and our trading generates a deficit.

This issue is not just a technical question about Schengen, or otherwise; we must concentrate on the bigger landscape, which is the failure of the European project. It is also about our democracy and the individual electors who voted us into Parliament on the clear understanding that we would protect their interests. That is why a veto is necessary unless a renegotiation of our fundamental relationship with the EU, along the lines that I have described, is achieved, as well as the protection of our democratic interests and the rights of our constituents.

That is also why a referendum is required. The idea being peddled that a referendum is not required—leaving aside the issue of timing—because of the coalition agreement is wholly misleading. The coalition agreement is not law, and even section 4 of the European Union Act 2011, which I sought to remove from the original Bill by an amendment that was rejected by the Government, is not definitive in excluding a referendum where a new treaty or series of legal devices that have been put together has the effect of merely appearing to make provision for member states other than the UK. That is a matter of legal interpretation and we are by no means finished with it; indeed, I have a Bill coming forward in January that has been signed up to by six Chairmen of Select Committees and that will make that clear. But the important thing is that we engage in this debate.

The assumption that is being made at the moment—that we are unable to have a referendum because of section 4 of the 2011 Act—is wholly misleading. The constitutional position for a referendum, let alone the political and economic situation, is not clear-cut by any means, and it cannot override the fundamental principle, as set out in 1975 when a referendum was conducted, because the renegotiations in this instance involve a fundamental change in the overall relationship between the UK and the EU. A referendum is required, quite simply because the current proposals vitally affect the people of the UK. We must have a referendum—it is a matter of principle, honour and trust.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Mr David Nuttall to speak, I will point out that there are three other Members who have attended the debate and who would also like to speak. I will be calling for winding-up speeches from about 5.10 pm. I call Mr David Nuttall to speak, and there are three other colleagues who may wish to catch my eye after him.

European Budgets 2014 to 2020

Debate between Anne Main and William Cash

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

First, I should like to demonstrate the extent of the documents that I will discuss in the next five minutes, just to give some indication of what is going on.

Secondly, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I had the opportunity to go, on behalf of our national Parliament, to a conference on the multi-annual financial framework. It was a complete farce. Mr Barroso, our Minister for Europe, Ministers from other countries and their permanent secretaries and so on were all there. I was completely staggered by their inability to have the faintest idea of what was going on. I said to them, “You are living on another planet!” Somewhat unusually, I ended up being congratulated by our UKRep representatives on at least spelling that out. It is devastating how far removed those people are from the realities of life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said.

On the structural questions, the proposals—the financial transactions tax and the change to greater own resources—are fundamental changes. The chairman of the European parliamentary committee, Mr Alain Lamassoure, who gave us the benefit of his many speeches, and who has written a huge pamphlet on the subject, is living on another planet. In the meantime, a meteor has hit planet Europe and huge chunks are falling off it, but it is still spinning, even when the whole thing is disintegrating in front of our eyes. These people are astonishing.

With respect to the Minister, I look to the future with some concern, if only because we could end up with another increase in spending despite the blandishments of the motion. Delighted as I am that right hon. and hon. Friends have signed the motion, I issue that cautionary note.

[Mrs Main]

I would like to test the resilience of the proposal about whether we have to pay more, and say, “No more will we pay,” and see what happens. We for ever capitulate when we are pressed to the point. I would like to say, “This is the will of this sovereign Parliament, and we will not pay any more”. We should test that

[Mr Cash]

I, too, take that view. My hon. Friend is completely right. I note that the motion states that the House

“supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce the Commission’s proposed budget”.

I would hope to go further, but we shall see.

European Union Fiscal Union

Debate between Anne Main and William Cash

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cash]

That is absolutely the case, and it is very depressing. The whole objective of the treaty arrangement, from its inception and the days of Jean Monnet onwards—and as evidenced by recent treaties, including the Lisbon treaty—is essentially undemocratic.

Implementing the measure would create a situation in which people in this country, who in general elections have voted through their own free choice at the ballot box for policies, were denied those policies because the proposals brought forward by majority voting in the European Union are inimical to growth and deficit reduction.

I shall explain why it is so fundamentally wrong for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the coalition Government as a whole—under the baleful influence of the Liberal Democrats—to advocate the idea of a fiscal union. For reasons that I will explain, fiscal union is immensely damaging to the national interest and our economy.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that it is the language surrounding these new moves that is deeply worrying? I believe that those people who had a chance to vote on whether they wanted to join what they thought was the common market would never have done so at any time if the rhetoric that we are now hearing had been used then. The language being used relates to deeper fiscal integration, eurobonds and basically subsuming what the British people want. That is why we need to ask the people again whether they wish to embark on this experimental project.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful for that intervention. Indeed, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement—which he slipped in, as it were, in the middle of the emergency debate on the riots—he said that he was going to promote the idea, and that the Prime Minister had already spoken to Mrs Angela Merkel and Mr Sarkozy and had encouraged them to go ahead with fiscal union.

In addition, he said that he, as Chancellor, had already made overtures to other Chancellors in other member states advocating the idea of fiscal union. When he said that, he was ignoring the fact that the consequences of going down that route would, as I said at the time, have been such that even Edward Heath would not have proposed it back in 1971-2. Indeed, if hon. Members look at the White Paper produced at that time, they will see that it says that we would retain the veto in our national interest and that to fail to do so would not only be immensely damaging to the United Kingdom, but would even endanger

“the fabric of the European community itself.”

Since then, we have had an accumulation and aggregation of policies in defiance of the democratic issues and principles to which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) referred—and, indeed, in defiance of the wishes of the people of this country and, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said, of other member states such as Ireland, Denmark, Holland and France. Every single time a referendum, which shows the democratic wishes of the people in question, has been overriden, we are being taken down a route that, above all else, does not work. That is the problem.

Apart from the matters of principle, the real problem is that such an approach does not work and is now causing immense damage. For example, there are incredibly high levels of youth unemployment in places such as Spain, where 47% of young people are unemployed. There are similar levels of unemployment in Greece and Italy, although the figures are not quite as high as 47%.

I do not need to read all the figures out, but the official statistics for unemployment among youths under 25 are 46.2% for Spain, over 23% for eight countries and 32% for one country. This is not a working system; this is a system that is destroying people’s aspirations and prosperity.