European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Denis MacShane and Martin Horwood

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has spent much time holidaying in Europe in recent years, but there has been a substantial devaluation of the English pound against the euro since, roughly, 2008, and what have we seen? A recovery in Britain? An increase in exports? A decrease in imports? An increase in the creation of firms and jobs? In fact, we have seen the very opposite. My hon. Friend is right historically—he is always right historically—but I prefer to live today rather than in history.

The main problem with the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will have the honesty to say so, although the amendment was tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. The notion that nothing can be ratified until every other country has ratified it and disposed of putative legal challenges is a circle that can never be broken. If the same rule were adopted by even one other EU member state, nothing could be ratified until we had agreed to ratify it, and we could not agree to ratify it until other Parliaments had done so.

Not only are we, as usual, condescendingly and patronisingly lecturing other Parliaments on what their constitutional settlements should be, but this is nothing short of a wrecking amendment, and I wish that Conservative Members would have the intellectual honesty to say so.

[Martin Horwood]

It is generally a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in European debates, as he and I share a broad enthusiasm for the European Union and its development. However, I think that on this occasion he is being a little unkind to our hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. I do not think that this is a wrecking amendment; I think that it asks legitimate questions about the timing of the transfer between the European financial stability facility and the European financial stabilisation mechanism and the new European sustainability mechanism—although I think that by demonstrating that we know the difference between the EFSF, the EFSM and the ESM, we are probably all showing that we need to get out more.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the old EFSM, which made Britain liable for the financial bail-outs, could be brought back. That is an interesting question, and I too would like to hear the Minister answer it. I assume that a vote by the Council, probably with unanimity, would be required to bring the EFSM back into operation, given that the Council voted to end it, or at least not to involve it in any new bail-outs. If that is the case, I think that it would reassure Conservative Members considerably to know that the EFSM is, in effect, dead and buried, at least in respect of new bail-outs.

There are two problems with the amendment. The right hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out one of them in what was a rather pre-emptive intervention. This amendment ties the triggering of United Kingdom legislation to actions of other countries—to events in Berlin, Dublin or the European Court, for instance. That is a strange principle for Members who have generally been rather keen to emphasise the unique sovereignty and independence of the United Kingdom Parliament to be trying to introduce into a British Bill. It raises a constitutional question, too: should we be putting clauses into British legislation that are entirely dependent on events in other countries?

The second problem is the political roundabout problem. If other countries follow our example and make their ratification of the treaty dependent on others finishing their processes, we will be like cars at a roundabout, with everybody waiting for everybody else to go, and the whole process will completely logjam. I am not sure whether that is what was intended, but it would make the amendment something of a wrecking amendment, in practice if not in theory. I think this is an impractical amendment—albeit perhaps a well-meaning one, which has produced an at least mildly illuminating debate.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between Denis MacShane and Martin Horwood

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in debates on Europe. He is the authentic voice of Euro-enthusiasm on the Labour Benches—[Interruption.] He is one of the authentic voices. I could not, however, work out from listening to his speech whether he was in favour of the treaty or not.

It is also traditional to congratulate the hon. Member who secured a debate such as this, but in this case I think that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has missed the point on a colossal—almost historic—scale. There are questions of legality and politics around the treaty, but they are dwarfed by the really big issue, which is the future of the European economy. The treaty represents a sincere and concerted attempt to make that future stronger, safer and more prosperous. We can argue about its chances of success, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake—perhaps I should say “gâteau”—and eat it. He is calling on European economies to practise fiscal responsibility without the treaty, while simultaneously criticising them for not sticking to the previous, more flexible, regime. I do not think that he can have it both ways.

That is in stark contrast to the letter written by the Prime Minister and 11 other Heads of Government in the run-up to the summit, which tried to address the real issue of promoting prosperity in Europe. It talked about completing the single market in service markets and promoting the digital economy, as well as

“providing a secure and affordable system for cross-border on-line payments, establishing on-line dispute resolution mechanisms for cross-border on-line transactions”.

It also proposed promoting an “internal market in energy” and “energy interconnection”, as well as a

“commitment to innovation by establishing the European Research Area, creating the best possible environment for entrepreneurs and innovators to commercialise their ideas”.

That is exactly the agenda that should be dominating our discussion of the summit. We should be talking about how we are going to get the whole of the European economy back on track towards creating jobs and sustainable prosperity.

We have to ask ourselves: what is the real threat to the UK’s national interests? Is it really the use of EU institutions by fiscal compact countries? Could that not be interpreted as a connection that will strengthen the interests of the 28, relative to the fiscal compact countries? That connection, and the involvement of the Commission, will mean that at least one institution will have to uphold proper adherence to the European Union treaties and the safeguards in the fiscal compact treaty.

Is there any threat to the single market, which is one of Britain’s primary interests in all this, given the safeguards that we have succeeded in inserting into the treaty by having a seat at the table and being part of the discussions that led to the drafting of the treaty, despite not being a signatory to it? That is in contrast to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who is no longer in her place. I believe that that was a positive step by the Government, and a positive example of the re-engagement that we have seen since December.

[Mr MacShane]

Does the hon. Gentleman still share the view of his leader, now the Deputy Prime Minister, that the Conservative party’s colleagues in the European Parliament are “nutters”, “anti-Semites” and “homophobes”?

[Martin Horwood]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misquoting the Deputy Prime Minister, who was referring to the other parties that are members of that group. I obviously have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our leader was not accusing Conservative MEPs of that.

What is the most serious threat to the UK’s national interests? Is it the use of the EU institutions? Is there a threat to the single market, given the safeguards that have now been inserted into the treaty? I would say not. The most serious threat to the UK’s national interests is the most serious economic crisis in Europe’s post-war history. It is a real and present danger to British jobs, British prosperity and British companies. Why would we now throw a spanner into the works of the only vehicle with a chance of bringing that crisis under control? To use the term used by the hon. Member for Stone, I think that such an idea reveals something about his own pursuit of ideology, rather than any real defence of the UK’s national interests. For that reason, I think that he might even be losing sympathy among his Conservative colleagues for what must now count as the political equivalent of antisocial behaviour in continuing to be completely obsessed by the legal minutiae and institutional details, rather than the really big picture that is facing Europe and Britain within the European economy.

European Budgets 2014 to 2020

Debate between Denis MacShane and Martin Horwood

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I stand as a resolute Thatcherite on this question. In 1940, Polish pilots came and grappled with the enemy, getting much closer than our pilots while risking their lives, and shooting down proportionally many more planes. Forty years later, Polish Solidarity helped to dig the grave of European Communism. What is our response? Today Poland is the fourth larger contributor to the UK rebate, despite being a much, much poorer country.

That is why, in the 1980s, the Prime Minister—now Lady Thatcher—was happy to see Britain’s contribution to the European Community budget, as it was then, rise from £656 million in 1984 to £2.54 billion in 1990. During the same period, the EC budget grew threefold. When taxed by Labour Members of Parliament—including my right hon. and good Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who said, “She has come back from Brussels, hauled down the Union flag and hauled up the white flag of surrender to Europe”—the Prime Minister said “No, no, no: we must help our new friends and encourage growth in the economies of the countries that are joining Europe.” Well, we are a different Britain now. We do not like the Poles, and we do not like Poland. We are saying to the Poles, “Keep signing a very large cheque for our rebate.”

There has been much talk about unaccountable transfers of money. May I draw the House’s attention to one very unaccountable and huge transfer of money? I refer to the £40 billion that it is proposed that we should give to the International Monetary Fund, which is unaccountable and secretive and whose staff salaries make the average EU salary look like pauper’s pay. That sum—£40 billion—is more than the entire amount raised in corporation tax in Britain each year. It is bigger than the combined budgets of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and all Departments except for the big spenders who have responsibility for costly areas such as the NHS and social security. We are happy to send that £40 billion to Washington with barely a nod or a debate in this House, but it is a far bigger sum than any amount being imposed in respect of Europe.

I agree with the points about maintaining budget discipline, but I ask the Minister to confirm in his winding-up speech that from 2014 to 2020 the EU budget is due to increase by 11%, which is a rise of well under 2% per year—far below current inflation rates in this country. I have every sympathy with the Minister, because I have done some of this work in Europe myself and, frankly, dealing with EU budget questions makes the Rosetta stone translation look like child’s play.

The bottom line is that the EU budget will not go above 1% of Europe’s gross national income because it cannot do so. There are debates to be had about how this money should be spent, and 85% of it comes straight back to nation states, including Britain, to spend on agriculture subsidies and structural and regional funds. If we did not have a common agricultural policy, we would have to have a British agricultural policy, and I can assure colleagues that our farmers’ lobby would extract a far bigger share of taxpayers’ money than it does under the CAP.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

No, because I want to conclude.

This is not just a European question. The signal we are sending around the world is that we are open to business but are closed to foreigners, and that we want inward investment but want to disconnect from Europe. We are sending a very negative and dangerous signal that we do not like the biggest single market in the world and we do not want to be full partners with the rest of the 500 million people living under the rule of law and democracy.

I understand Front-Bench colleagues’ interpretation of the Robin Hood tax—the fair trade tax—but I feel a lot happier in the current economic crisis standing with the spirit of St Paul’s rather than the spirit of bean counters.

North Africa and the Middle East

Debate between Denis MacShane and Martin Horwood

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is right. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who has just left the Chamber, was eloquent on this subject on the “Today” programme and in this House: the diplomatic gain of weaning Gaddafi off WMDs and terrorism was worth the connection. The previous Conservative Administration gave a knighthood to Robert Mugabe as Sir John Major tried to make friends with him and, up until 19 February of this year, those on the Government Front Bench were selling arms to Bahrain. I am not criticising them for that—I am sorry, but we are an arms-manufacturing and exporting nation. This is really the most piffling and irrelevant hypocrisy. The Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary are concentrating on important issues and the way we should go forward. Having this sort of row about who shook hands with who and which guns were sold—

[Martin Horwood]

And tear gas.

[Mr MacShane]

And tear gas. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is part of the coalition Government who were selling tear gas and small arms weapons to Bahrain. He has no right to get pompous about what was happening before May 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Bluntly, yes—the use of Saudi arms and armour in Bahrain, particularly in the context of today’s disturbing pictures of unarmed protesters being shot in the streets by security forces, means that we must question any continuing arms sales to countries that have records of repression.

I regret that in the midst of the democratic revolutions, the Prime Minister, on his tour of the middle east, which had many positive aspects, was nevertheless accompanied by representatives of BAE Systems, QinetiQ, the Cobham group, Thales UK, Babcock International and Atkins.

In the spirit of coalition, I remind Ministers of the Liberal Democrats’ pre-election criticism of arms sales to the region, and specifically to Libya, and of our support for an international arms trade treaty and the prevention of arms sales to any regime that could use them for internal repression. That last objective has now been strongly expressed by the Minister, but I hope he confirms today that the sale of tear gas and crowd control ammunition to anyone is completely incompatible with those objectives.

There is a clear danger that Libya will not be seen in future in the same light as Egypt and Tunisia; sadly, we might see it alongside Czechoslovakia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Hungary as one of the great failures of the international community to intervene on behalf of the people. I do not envy the Foreign Secretary the decisions he must make, but I can assure him of Liberal Democrat support for any belated action by the international community, although he was right to be wary of any intervention that could be described as “western”. That would be a dangerous path to go down, and any intervention must be undertaken with wide international support.

I support the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, who said that we should look at other imaginative ways of intervening, particularly in respect of IT infrastructure, to make life impossible for the Libyan regime.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made an eloquent speech in which he called for a complete policy rethink. There is a lot of truth in that. At UK, European and international level, we need to review how we can rapidly respond to situations such as the one in Libya. We need to do that quickly, because similar situations could soon emerge elsewhere.

[Mr MacShane]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 17 February I called on the Foreign Secretary to

“agree to a wide review of UK foreign policy in the region before it is too late”?—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1136.]

I made that call, and I am glad that one month later more Government Members are supporting it.

[Martin Horwood]

I am not sure what I am supposed to say to that, except that I have already said that I support a review of international policy. That has to happen quickly. We also need to review—unfortunately—how we treat brutal dictators who survive using violence and repression. That needs to be addressed urgently. At an international level, we need a strategy for persuading Russia and China in particular—both quick enough to intervene in their neighbourhoods—that the international community’s responsibility to protect needs to become a practical reality. Perhaps we also need some fresh faces in the international community’s peace efforts, not least in the context of the middle east, and Israel and Palestine. In that vein, will Ministers tell us exactly what contribution and progress the former Prime Minister Tony Blair is making in his role as the Quartet’s special envoy? He was always a rather bizarre choice as a middle east peace envoy, and I would like to know whether Ministers think the time has come for him to go and to make way for fresh faces and those slightly more actively engaged in the massive changes taking place in the region.

The clear policy of Arab partnership also needs to extend to states and people currently overlooked. I will end with one example that I hope Ministers will take up: the case of Dr Kamal al-Labwani. He is a Syrian doctor, writer and artist who took part in the brief but unsuccessful Damascus spring in 2001 and the founder of the excellently named Liberal Democratic Union. In 2005, he was charged with weakening national morale and imprisoned. He was behaving only as a free citizen in a free country would have done—an extraordinarily courageous approach once described in Europe by Vaclav Havel as living in truth—but it resulted in his imprisonment. The charge was changed to scheming with a foreign country with the aim of causing it to attack Syria, and he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He is now on hunger strike, along with other prisoners in the Adra prison. His detention has been condemned by a UN working group on arbitrary detention as arbitrary and contrary to the UN declaration of human rights, and there is now disturbing news of fresh detentions and disappearances, including of members of Dr al-Labwani’s family, who bear no responsibility for any of his political actions. If we are to have a real Arab partnership for peace, democracy and reform in the region, it must reach out to people such as Dr al-Labwani and other courageous members of democratic movements who might not be in government, and not just to the emerging democratic Governments.

European Union (Amendment) Act 2008

Debate between Denis MacShane and Martin Horwood

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I actually agree with some of what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said: a lot of this does turn on Germany. We are told that the eurozone is a disaster zone, economically, but we can now see that Germany is succeeding rather well in the eurozone according to all the indices that matter: growth, falling unemployment and exports. I agree that Germany is playing its hand. I am worried about the German position on intervening in Libya, but that is the price we pay for—

[Martin Horwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

Very briefly. I want to take up only two or three minutes.

[Martin Horwood]

I hope that, while endorsing the words of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the right hon. Gentleman will dissociate himself from the hon. Gentleman’s use of the term “appeasement” in connection with Germany. It was profoundly distasteful and quite inappropriate to this debate.

[Mr MacShane]

I thought the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) made an important intervention earlier this week about the Saudi invasion and occupation of Bahrain, but that is another point. I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Stone has put his finger on a very profound point, although I would not use the term “appeasement”.

I have affection for the Minister for Europe, who was like Horatio defending the bridge, fighting all by himself “for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods”, as the Tuscan hordes—the Eurosceptic hordes—bore down on him and tried to thrust him to one side in order to bring to bear their vision of what Britain should be like. This is a very serious development. The Government have used article 48(6) of the treaty of the European Union—the famous passerelle clause, which was not meant to be used.

We are agreed that part of the problem is connected with the budget freeze, about which the Minister spoke so passionately and proudly, but in exchange the President of France is going to get an absolute block on any common agricultural policy reform. Right hon. and hon. Members should have no illusions about that; if any part of Europe is frozen, it all tends to start freezing. In the agreed statement, although the new mechanism applies only to eurozone or euro-using members, it fully engages Britain. As the key statement we are debating tonight states:

“The Heads of State or Government of the euro area”—

that is not us—

“and the EU institutions have made it clear… that they stand ready to do whatever is required to ensure the stability of the euro area as a whole. The euro is and will remain a central part of European integration. In particular, the Heads called for determined action in the following areas”,

which were specified. The Heads of the European institutions speak for us. That means the President of the European Council. We appointed him, as we appointed the President of the European Parliament. Our MEPs elected him. I am afraid that this is not simply a matter solely and exclusively for the eurozone. Frankly, this might be a comfort blanket that my dear friend Horatio is trying to throw over the noisy bedsteads of the Tuscans behind him, but the fact is that this will commit Britain to take part in decisions that involve us as a nation.

When I said in a debate last week that the Prime Minister, after discussing the Libyan crisis on Friday, would be asked to leave the room, the hon. Member for Stone intervened, as some Members might remember, and read out a press release saying that the British Prime Minister would take part in these decisions on the architecture of economic governance of Europe as a whole. The hon. Member for Stone might care to recall that, last Friday, as soon as the Libyan discussions were over—they ended, frankly, in nothing, with bits of paper being waved around—the serious decisions of the European Council started and lasted all through Friday afternoon, Friday evening and Saturday. The Irish Prime Minister, the new one of the newly elected Government, went home, not achieving what the Irish people had voted for, but we were absent. This is what the Deputy Prime Minister rightly calls the “empty chair” policy of the present Government, which greatly worries me.

We will pass this legislation tonight, but I accept what the hon. Member for Stone said—this is a matter of high importance. I worry that we are slowly isolating ourselves from the main thrust of decision making in Europe. I think the Minister is putting up a firm defence. The Prime Minister, however, at Prime Minister’s Questions last week, dismissed the intervention of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—I do not mean that unkindly, as I thought it was one of the nicest interventions ever. The hon. Gentleman appealed to the Prime Minister for an in-or-out referendum, but the Prime Minister effectively said on behalf of the British nation state that we are not leaving and that we are not going to a have a referendum, as we are part of Europe.