Douglas Alexander
Main Page: Douglas Alexander (Labour (Co-op) - Lothian East)Department Debates - View all Douglas Alexander's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
No, this is quite an interesting explanation. Minutes later, on the “Daily Politics” show the shadow Energy Secretary adjusted her position: it was correct, she said, that at the next election the Conservatives would be promising a referendum and Labour would not, but she gave the caveat that that was the position “as it stands today”. More accurately, it was the position as it stood that minute because minutes later journalists were briefed that the Leader of the Opposition had meant to say that Labour did not want an in/out referendum now. Within half an hour, the shadow Foreign Secretary was back on the airwaves—a busy chap—to correct his leader and explain,
“our judgement is that to commit to an in/out referendum now is the wrong choice for the country”
but, he added, “we’ve never said never”.
If we look at the evidence, although we cannot be certain about the Labour party’s position, we can make an educated guess that although Labour will not call for an in/out referendum now, it might do so in future, and it is completely possible—but not certain—that it will be in its next election manifesto. I am waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to nod—
Mr Hague
He is nodding. That is the position: it is possible, but not certain. If that is Labour’s position, it is the most uncertain position of all—they might have an in/out referendum, but they might not. The Labour party is against a referendum but not necessarily; it has adopted a position for the next general election that might not apply at that election. It is against uncertainty, but it is not really sure about it. I ask Labour Members to listen to members of their party, the shadow Cabinet or the leadership.
Who said:
“This is about democracy…it is about respecting the people. Successive generations have not had a say on the European debate. All parties have promised a referendum over the last couple of years. This will fester until a proper open discussion is allowed by the political class.”?
That was the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) who is meant to be in charge of policy in the Labour party. More recently, who said:
“I think at some point there will have to be a referendum on the EU. I don’t think it’s for today or for the next year, but I think it should happen...My preference would be an in or out referendum when the time comes”?
That was the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), a close colleague of the shadow Foreign Secretary. Most eloquent of all, who said:
“The European mandate that the Heath Government secured in the 1970s belongs to another time and another generation. I believe a fresh referendum on this will be necessary…a healthy means of re-establishing a consensus—among Britons…about Britain’s place in the world”?
It is not often that I agree with Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool in the County of Durham and Foy in the County of Herefordshire—he likes his full title—but when he spoke he was, most unusually, speaking for the people of Britain. We will wait for the shadow Foreign Secretary to set out his party’s definitive position. If he does so with certainty, it will be very revealing, and if he accuses the Government of uncertainty, it will be very amusing.
The coalition Government have a strong record with many achievements to their name. We have a clear vision for Britain’s future in Europe. We want reform, and then a referendum with a real choice: in the European Union on a new settlement or out. I hope and believe that Britain will remain in the European Union under a fresh settlement with fresh consent. That would be in the interest of Britain and Europe. We are seeking not only an improvement in Britain’s position, but an improvement in the way the European Union works that would benefit all its countries. We need a focus on competitiveness, flexibility, less centralisation and better democratic accountability, and that would be a European Union that can succeed in the 21st century.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is, of course, courteous to welcome the Foreign Secretary to the Front Bench, and indeed back to Britain. I am sure it was more agreeable celebrating Hillary Clinton’s time in office last night than watching those on the Opposition Benches celebrate the vote he chose to miss.
The right hon. Gentleman’s speech was, as ever, amusing, but rather less enlightening in terms of its principles, and I will speak about that in a minute. This debate is taking place in the context not just of a speech made last week but of some figures. On Friday it was confirmed by the Office for National Statistics that the United Kingdom economy shrank by 0.3% in the last quarter, and last week we learned that throughout 2012 the UK economy did not grow at all. Unemployment is high.
Mr Alexander
No, it is important the hon. Gentleman listens. I will make a little progress and then I will happily take some interventions.
Unemployment today is high, borrowing is rising and growth is flatlining. The International Monetary Fund is worried, credit rating agencies are concerned, and the British public are anxious. It tells us all we need to know about the Government’s focus that against such a backdrop they chose to call a general debate in Government time not on the economy, but on Europe.
Daniel Kawczynski
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the economy shrinking over the last quarter. Does he accept that under the previous Labour Government there was an overdependency on exports to the European Union and huge neglect of various parts of the middle east and north Africa? The Labour party is responsible for making us overdependent on exports to Europe.
Mr Alexander
I hope for the hon. Gentleman’s sake that he misspoke in suggesting there was an overdependence on exports to the European Union. I certainly do not think that reflects the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will nod his assent to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. No, he has chosen not to nod. That is one all, and we are not off the first page of my speech.
Mr Alexander
I am keen to make a little progress and then I will happily take as many interventions as we can manage in the time available.
The Prime Minister, alas, seems more focused on the UK Independence party’s numbers than on the gross domestic product figures. When the priority should have been stability, investment and jobs, as Friday’s figures confirmed, he delivered a glorified handling strategy for Conservative Back Benchers, confirming that he is more interested in securing stability in the Conservative party than in securing stability in the economy.
Andrea Leadsom
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the EU is changing, and that the eurozone crisis has led to the point at which Britain simply cannot continue in the same way? Does he agree that, in order to safeguard our current interests, we must adopt change?
Mr Alexander
Of course change is coming to the EU and we want to see it. The tragedy is that Conservative Back Benchers prevent the Prime Minister from addressing those changes in a sensible, serious way and from advancing Britain’s national interest.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I heard very clearly the Opposition rule out an in/out referendum at any time, but I have also heard the right hon. Gentleman’s reluctance to say never. Will he explain in what circumstances he will go to his party leader and say, “Things have changed. We need an in/out referendum”?
Mr Alexander
The right hon. Gentleman missed the “Today” programme on Saturday morning, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke. The position I set out last week in the studios reflected the fact that we could not sensibly and should not make a judgment now. As I have said, Europe is changing. The timing, character and impact on Britain and our national interests of those changes is as yet unclear. That is not a party political position but simply the reality. I do not start from a prejudiced view towards the EU. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) published a book called “The Death of Britain?” in 1999. As far as I am aware, Britain still exists. In that sense, I am not sure that his concerns—[Interruption.] He seems uncertain because he is adopting the shadow Chancellor’s hand gestures. I hope he soon adopts the shadow Chancellor’s economics as well.
On economics, senior British figures, including Sir Richard Branson and Sir Martin Sorrell, warned that the Prime Minister’s approach risked creating damaging uncertainty for British business. The Foreign Secretary did his very best to use the expertly drawn-up brief from the Foreign Office to suggest that British business was rushing to endorse the Prime Minister’s approach last week, but he was careful to give a series of quotes that endorsed a process of reform—not a single quote welcomed the prospect of a referendum, which is the basis on which economic stability has been put at risk. The Foreign Secretary does not need to take my word for that. On 24 October 2011, he himself claimed that an in/out referendum
“would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”
For the record, since the Foreign Secretary made those remarks, it has been confirmed that the UK economy has shrunk by 0.3%, so perhaps he will take this opportunity to enlighten the House on how calling for an immediate in/out referendum creates, as he suggests, “additional economic uncertainty”, but committing to an in/out referendum years from now does not. The sound of silence speaks volumes. For all his best efforts today, we know that the origins, timing and content of the Prime Minister’s speech on the EU lay in the politics of the Conservative party much more than they lay in the foreign policy of the country.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend highlights the Conservative party’s difficulties, but does he agree with Ian Birrell, the Prime Minister’s former speech writer, who has said that the Prime Minister’s speech was the biggest gamble of his career? He also said that the Prime Minister is not only throwing a block of meat to the Conservative right, but giving them the keys to the abattoir.
Mr Alexander
Ian Birrell is an engaging and illuminating columnist, and his point on the lack of specificity in the Prime Minister’s speech is an important one. Of course, it is important to recognise that the Prime Minister did not wake up last Wednesday morning suddenly filled with a new-found democratic impulse; he woke up with the same headache he has had for years—a set of Conservative Back Benchers banging on about Europe. He used to oppose that.
Mr Douglas Alexander
I shall make a little progress before giving way.
The Prime Minister’s speech last week disregarded the greatest concern—I would argue—of the British people, namely the need for stability, growth and jobs. In truth, it was a speech that the Prime Minister did not want to give, on a subject he prefers not to talk about, at a time when no decision was required. Its primary aim was to try to deliver unity through the device of obscurity. That is why the Foreign Secretary’s speech was so illuminating.
Alas, I calculate that the Prime Minister’s speech managed to unite the Conservative party for less than 96 hours, at which point the papers were once again full of new plans and plots against him from within the Conservative ranks. Who can blame them?
Mr Alexander
I will make a little more progress.
Far from resolving the issue of Europe, the Prime Minister’s speech ended up prompting more questions than it answered. Those questions, alas, were singularly avoided by the Foreign Secretary in his speech today. Instead of setting out red lines for the negotiations or detailing the powers he wants to repatriate, the Prime Minister instead described five principles, about which we have heard more today, with which few hon. Members could disagree. I am happy to confirm for the Foreign Secretary—this might discombobulate Conservative Back Benchers—that the Opposition are happy to endorse the five principles. Foreign Secretaries have been advocating them for many years.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Which powers would the right hon. Gentleman like to be returned from Europe to this country?
Mr Alexander
The Opposition have said that reform rather than repatriation is how to achieve the change in Europe we want—[Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to finish? We have said that we will judge on a case-by-case basis the merits or demerits of where those powers reside. With respect, I should point out to him that the only power identified by the Prime Minister in his long and much trailed speech last week was a change to the working time directive. Is the Prime Minister honestly suggesting that the right of British doctors not to treat a patient when they have not been to bed for two days is the only power he is seeking to repatriate? Is he suggesting that, if he fails to secure that repatriation, he will recommend a no vote for the EU? That is the idiocy we were left with after the Prime Minister’s speech last week.
Mr Douglas Alexander
I will make a little more progress before giving way.
Let me read the principles so that the House can know just how crystal clear they are. The principles are competitiveness, flexibility, that power must be able to flow back to member states and not just away from them, democratic accountability and fairness. As I have said, the Opposition agree with those principles—I hope that does not cause great discomfort on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, to be fair, there is a degree of common ground between the Prime Minister and the Opposition on the need for change in Europe.
Mr Alexander
I have already let the hon. Lady intervene. As I have suggested to her, the real tragedy is that Conservative Back Benchers will not let the Prime Minister sensibly deliver the changes that we agree are needed in Europe.
Chris Bryant
Is there not an irony in the fact that the Government are able to come up with only one line on a power they would like to repatriate—namely, the working time directive? The working time directive can be changed. The Prime Minister could be fighting to change it, because it is a directive and a matter of qualified majority voting. If he wants to repatriate that power, he must get every single country in Europe to agree to the change. Is there not hypocrisy at the centre of the Government policy?
Mr Alexander
The Labour Government secured an opt-out on the working time directive, and that process of change can be advanced now rather than in many years ahead. It is significant that the Foreign Secretary, for all his skill as a parliamentarian, singularly avoided giving a single additional detail in his lengthy remarks today on what the Prime Minister was talking about.
Mr Douglas Alexander
Let me make a little more progress.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly talked about bringing back EU social and employment laws. On 15 November 2005, he said:
“I want, as a strategic imperative, to take back from the European Union social and employment legislation.”
He gave no qualification of that statement. The Foreign Secretary has often singled out the EU’s fisheries policy. He has said he “deplored” it, but was rather more measured in his response to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). The Foreign Secretary has also said that he has
“long argued that far greater control over fisheries should pass back to national and regional bodies.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 199.]
He has been equally explicit on justice and home affairs. On 16 June 2008, he said:
“The whole area of justice and home affairs…should be matters for individual nations.”
However, the Prime Minister seems to have misplaced his shopping list on the way to delivering his speech last week. All he said on the matter was this:
“we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.”
The words “employment law” did not feature in his speech; fisheries were mentioned only in passing; there was not a single reference to the common agricultural policy or agriculture; the word “repatriation” was never mentioned; and he did not even utter the term “opt-out”. He promised his Back Benchers chunks of red meat and instead delivered a text full of tofu. The reason he chose only to serve up the vegetarian option last Wednesday is that before, during and after the Prime Minister’s speech a couple of truths endure: the impression of unity can only be achieved through the device of obscurity, and the gap between what the Conservative Back Benchers will demand and what the European Union can deliver remains simply unbridgeable.
Ben Gummer
The right hon. Gentleman is proceeding elegantly, which is characteristic, but this is a general debate on the matter of Europe. We have a settled position on the Conservative Benches—[Laughter.] Well, we do, and we are still waiting and looking forward to hearing the opinion of Her Majesty’s Opposition, were they to come into government in two years’ time.
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman did his best to read the Whips’ brief with a degree of conviction, but the idea that there is a settled position is risible. The only attempt to try and find common ground is on the basis of obscurity. The Prime Minister cannot level with his Back Benchers, and he cannot level with European leaders. That is why he has tried to avoid making the speech for the past year. It is not that he does not have talented speechwriters, it is that he did not know what to say. He does not know how to reconcile the demands of his Back Benchers with the needs of the country, and the Foreign Secretary demonstrated the same thing today.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with the managing director of Abacus Lighting in my constituency, who told me that if the UK was to leave the EU
“this would make it increasingly difficult for Abacus to compete”?
Does he also agree with another MD in my constituency, from R and D/Leverage, who said:
“My belief is we should take a more active role in Europe…not as happens today, sit on the side lines and point out the shortcomings of the EU, thus irritating all of our EU member states”?
Mr Alexander
I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. She offers two views that are an authentic expression of the real concerns of British businesses. They are exactly the kind of businesses that are struggling to deliver orders and to secure the economic growth that the country desperately needs. The Foreign Secretary’s attempt to offer a credible account of how the prospect of a referendum will assist such firms was an abject failure.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman railed against obscurity, and with that in mind will he inform the House what he would like to see happen with the common fisheries policy?
Mr Alexander
We want to see some of the changes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned today, as distinct from what he has said on previous occasions, which was to suggest that the abolition of the common fisheries policy was the way forward. Incidentally, it is a great pleasure to be responding to a Scottish National party Member today, and not simply because we now have agreement on that issue. I was fascinated by his party’s response to the Prime Minister’s speech, because the hon. Gentleman will be aware—he knows the figures as well as I do—that Scottish exports to the European Union are worth approximately £9 billion. Scottish exports to the rest of the United Kingdom—including from his constituency, so he should listen—are worth approximately £45 billion. What was the response of the Deputy First Minister in her ill-fated speech in Dublin? She suggested that a referendum could cause instability and threaten growth. Why would a referendum on Europe, affecting an export market worth £9 billion, cause instability and threaten growth, but a referendum affecting an export market worth £45 billion not be a cause of instability? I have to say that when I heard the Deputy First Minister speak, I thought irony had left the building.
Mr Alexander
I will make a little more progress and then I will give way.
The Foreign Secretary had his fun today on the matter of clarity, but within moments of the Prime Minister ending his speech it emerged that he could not tell the country how he will vote in his anticipated referendum. He cannot tell us what people will be choosing to stay in or to stay out of. Crucially—this reflects the point I have just answered—he cannot tell investors whether the United Kingdom will be part of the world’s largest single market in four years’ time. I am sure that even the Government Front-Bench team would accept that in any negotiation, European or otherwise, there has to be give and take. However, the Foreign Secretary cannot or will not tell us whether his party would advocate a yes vote or a no vote at the time of any potential in/out referendum if they had secured only 50% of the negotiating objectives—or indeed 60%, 70%, or perhaps even 80%. That is partly because we do not know what the negotiating objectives are, and partly because the Prime Minister simply cannot answer, as his party would not tolerate his answer.
George Freeman
I am extremely grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way on that point. We all know that business needs certainty, and we live in uncertain times. Will he take this opportunity to be tough on uncertainty and tough on the causes of uncertainty, and tell us whether Her Majesty’s Opposition support the Government’s proposal to renegotiate and to put the solution to the British people in an in/out referendum?
Mr Alexander
We do not support the Government’s approach. We do not support the idea, when we have seen a 0.3% shrinkage in the British economy in the last quarter, that now is the time to call for an in/out referendum. We listen to the voices of businesses in communities across the country. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that economic stability should not be the priority, I fear that he falls into exactly the area that the Prime Minister used to define his leadership by opposing. Does anyone remember the days when the Prime Minister talked about modernisation? He used to say that the Tories were going to have a different approach to the health service, and then they delivered the biggest reorganisation that the NHS has ever seen—one that the chief executive said could be seen from space. Does anyone remember the time when the Prime Minister said, “We’re going to be a different kind of Conservative party. We’re not going to be the nasty party anymore. We’re all in this together”? Then they delivered a millionaires’ top-rate tax cut. Does anyone remember the time when the Prime Minister said, “We’re going to stop banging on about Europe.” Well, that is exactly what we have now from those on the Government Benches.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
The progress towards regional management of our seas under the common fisheries policy is a good example of an initiative taken forward by this Government that was started under the Labour Government. It is very progressive and shows that it is not necessary to withdraw from the EU to achieve reform. May I appeal to my right hon. Friend on behalf of one of the strongest constituencies—the farming and food production sector? They want strong leadership; they do not want uncertainty. They want us in the European Union not for the food or farming subsidies, but for entry to the European market, good standards of animal welfare and good standards right across the food sector. That is what I have been told, having just come from a reception with the Farmers Union of Wales and others.
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of sense. The point he makes about the conditions in which British farms want to compete and succeed extends beyond the agricultural sector—a more general point I will come on to make in relation to the single market.
Sir James Paice
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. He has made it clear several times during his speech that not only does he foresee change in the EU, but he wants it and believes it is happening—I am sure that is a common view. However, he is giving us the clear impression that he will accept that change, whatever it may be. The position of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which I wholly support, is that, yes, we want that change, and we want to direct and be involved in negotiating that change, but that we cannot at this stage say that we will accept the results of that change whatever it may be. If he wants to stop uncertainty, surely he should be making it clear that either the Labour party will accept the evolution of change regardless of what it throws up in the next few years and that we will still be in the EU whatever it may be, or that there may be a stage where he has to say, “We don’t like that, we’ll ask the people.”
Mr Alexander
Modesty aside, may I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has a look at the speech I gave at Chatham House? Frankly, it set out far more details of specific changes that we would like to see in the European Union than the Prime Minister was able to manage in his speech. We do not suggest that the status quo is what we will or should advocate. We want to see change in Europe. We also recognise that change is coming to Europe. However, there is a fundamental disagreement between this side of the House and that side of the House on how best to achieve the objective of change within the European Union.
Mr Alexander
I am keen to make a little more progress.
Of course there are differences between our parties’ approaches on what those changes should include. My judgment is that the reason the Prime Minister was unable last week to set out the changes he wanted to see, beyond the change in working hours for junior doctors, was that the brittle façade of unity to which he is aspiring will crack—indeed, will disintegrate—as soon as he starts to get into the specifics, whether on employment law, social policy, fisheries policy, or a wide range of other issues. I commend the speech I gave, because it details changes in policy. We want to see Europe moving towards growth, and specific policies within the Commission to advance growth, rather than the approach taken in recent years. We see some institutional changes that are required. Of course there are other areas that we will look at, and they are set out in the speech. It is a matter of regret, however, that the Prime Minister felt unable even to match the shadow Foreign Secretary in the level of detail he could provide in his much-trailed speech last week.
One other point on which there was only obscurity last week was that of timing. The Prime Minister seemed unable to be clear on the most basic issue, because it remains uncertain whether treaty change will even happen on the time scale he suggested. At present, no intergovernmental conference is planned for 2015 and most EU Governments now claim there is no need for a big treaty revision for years to come. The only certainty, therefore, is more uncertainty delivered by the Prime Minister.
After both the Prime Minister’s speech and the Foreign Secretary’s speech today, we have been left with a commitment to an in/out referendum on a repatriation agenda that is unknown, within a time frame that is uncertain and towards an end goal that remains wholly undefined. In the debate in the House in 2011—when, incidentally, the Foreign Secretary voted alongside me in the Division Lobby—we argued that to announce an in/out referendum in these circumstances would not serve Britain’s national interest. Our position remains: reform of Europe, not exit from Europe.
Labour recognises, as I have sought to suggest, that the need for EU reform did not begin with the eurozone crisis, which is why our agenda for change must address the need for institutional, as well as policy, reform. That means tackling issues such as how to give national Parliaments more of a say over the making of EU legislation and delivering credible proposals for reform of the free movement directive and family-related entitlements at EU level.
The most immediate focus, however, must be on changes that promote and create jobs and growth. That is why we have consistently called not just for restraint, but for reform of the EU budget. The budget might be only 1% of GDP, but it could be better used, with a greater focus on securing growth and continued reform of the CAP. Alongside reform of the budget, we have argued for a new position of EU growth commissioner and a new mechanism better to assess the impact of every new piece of EU legislation to promote growth across the EU.
Protections for the single market and revival of the prospects for growth should be Europe’s priority for change, but to support and defend the single market—this was the point I was alluding to earlier—we must first understand how the market works. The internal market involves more than simply the absence of tariffs and trade quotas at the border. Common regulatory standards covering issues such as consumer rights, environmental standards and health and safety rules are not simply additions to the workings of the single market, but the basis on which it is built.
That means that a credible growth strategy for the UK as part of the EU cannot, and should not, be pursued on the basis of cheap labour, poor labour standards, poor safety standards and environmentally shoddy goods. If European partners, such as the Germans and the Dutch, can compete in global markets with high European standards, why do some Government Members claim that Britain cannot do so? The Opposition understand that the real agenda on certain Government Benches is not only to bring powers back, but to take rights away.
The Government’s approach threatens the directives on parental leave and agency workers and could mean that they no longer apply in the UK. On the working time directive, it is right that we have the opt-out negotiated by the last Labour Government, but what is the Government’s position? They cannot tell us whether they oppose every aspect of the working time directive. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will nod or shake his head. Does he support the maintenance of four weeks’ paid holiday entitlement?
Mr Redwood
Are there any powers or changes that the EU is currently seeking or likely to seek in the future that the right hon. Gentleman’s party would regard as unacceptable?
Mr Alexander
First, that would be a matter for negotiation, and secondly the changes we can envisage to the eurozone in particular do not involve significant additional transfers of powers from the UK to the EU. Indeed, as we heard at length from the Foreign Secretary, if there were a significant transfer of power in the future, it would trigger the referendum lock legislated for in this Parliament. I hope that that offers some comfort to the right hon. Gentleman that, in any circumstances, if there were a significant transfer of power, the referendum lock would be considered. Frankly, however, it is far from clear that the changes envisaged at the moment—on the deepening of the eurozone—would involve any significant transfer of sovereignty from the UK to Brussels.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I am reluctant to interrupt my right hon. Friend, because he is making such salient points, but obviously one of the meat-eaters on the Government Benches wanted to interrupt him. My right hon. Friend’s analysis should have been done by the Foreign Secretary. Is it not a matter of deep sadness that the Foreign Secretary, who knows about Europe and its significance to this country, has been driven into a corner by the ultra-right in his party? Is it not time he stood up to them, as we would, and challenged them over their idea of breaking away from Europe and bringing down the nation?
Mr Alexander
I yield to no one in my admiration for the Foreign Secretary, but he is in a difficult position: he is trading on his past Euroscepticism. In order to maintain his position with his Back Benchers, he has to effect the same persona that suggested we had nine days left to save the pound about 4,000 days ago. He is an intelligent man, however, and he has learned in office that Britain’s interests are served by being part of the EU. He cannot be too explicit about the changes he wants to see, however, because it would compromise the support on his own Back Benches. Nevertheless, I fully endorse my hon. Friend’s point; the right hon. Gentleman has learned in office, and that is why his points about Britain standing taller in the world as part of the EU are probably heartfelt.
Mr Alexander
We were clear during the passage of the Lisbon treaty that there should be an enhanced role for national Parliaments—indeed, in my speech last week, I contemplated whether we could strengthen the yellow card procedure with a red card procedure. I see a greater role for national Parliaments being contemplated in the future, therefore; it is certainly one of the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary might be minded to articulate, if he felt able to be explicit, but alas he has taken a Trappist vow of silence.
The debate about Britain’s place in Europe, for all the importance of talking about the economy, stability and jobs and growth, is about more than economics and labour markets. Fundamentally, it is about the kind of country we are and the kind we aspire to be. In a century that many have taken to calling the Asian century, the Labour party is clear that the case for EU membership remains strong. Indeed, if the mechanisms for co-ordinating approaches at EU level did not exist, there would be significant calls for them to be created in today’s world.
Over the past 50 years, the case for Britain’s place in Europe has been based on its ability to deliver peace and prosperity. Today, the EU is also an indispensible vehicle and instrument for amplifying our power. That is certainly true economically, but it is also true in trade. We have discussed today the EU free trade agreement. Is it not ironic that the Prime Minister’s No. 1 ambition for his presidency of the G8 this year is an EU-US free trade area? What could more eloquently speak to the fact that, in any of these international organisations, we stand taller and speak with a louder voice as part of the EU than we would outside it?
Whether in economics, trade, defence, foreign policy or the global challenges around development and climate change, Britain’s interests are strengthened by being part of the EU. It gives us a weight collectively that on our own we would lack. It is not a matter of outdated sentiment or even of party ideology; it is a matter of simple arithmetic. In an age when countries are the size of continents, our membership gives us access to, and influence over, the world’s biggest trading bloc, prising open new frontiers that would otherwise be unreachable by the UK. In an age of common threats that permeate national borders, membership gives us the power of collective action and pooled resources.
For the past 50 years, Britain’s foreign policy has rested on two key pillars—a leading role in Europe and a powerful partnership with the US. Let us be honest: both those foundations are at risk, with a US Administration increasingly pivoting towards Asia, and an EU in which the UK could potentially marginalise its future role. It is a time when Britain must navigate a careful course, and the priority must be to make Britain a leading force within Europe as part of an increasingly multi-polar world. Rather than seeing power and decision making contracting to the G2, in a world where all the decisions are taken in Washington or Beijing, Europe, with Britain leading within it, can work to build a G3 world. Instead of focusing on a future agenda for Europe, the Prime Minister has sadly chosen to push a familiar but vague agenda: to bring back powers and roll back protections. At a time when the rest of Europe is preoccupied with future reforms on the big questions—about currency, continued pacification of the European neighbourhood and the projection of European power globally—the British Government have chosen to focus their efforts on looking back rather than looking ahead.
Even after the much delayed speech last week, the truth remains that—as we have seen again today—on the issue of Britain’s membership of the European Union, the gap between the minimum that Conservative Back Benchers will accept and the maximum that the EU can deliver remains unbridgeable. With a divided Government—and, indeed, a divided Conservative party —it therefore falls to Labour to make the hard-headed, patriotic case, founded on the national interest, both for Britain in Europe and for change in Europe, and that is what we will do.