European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more. It would be useful if the Minister gave us the exact legal advice on the implications of the amendment and whether it would indeed scupper Croatia’s accession, which would be regrettable.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Lady, but I remind her that the Bill includes the protocol for Ireland, which was to allow the Irish not to ratify the Lisbon treaty and then to do so at a later date with certain guarantees. As it is possible to do that for Ireland, a protocol to a future treaty could allow amendments passed by this House to be incorporated, allowing Croatia to accede in the normal manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The accession treaty with Croatia has been negotiated in good faith, and its conditions and provisions state that an existing member state has the option to put in place a transition period of up to seven years. Labour Members are in favour of the treaty; indeed, there is cross-party support for the accession of Croatia. If we were to pass the amendment—again, that is highly unlikely since I do not see a great mass of supporters on the Government Benches—I believe, although I would welcome clarification, that that would derail the accession process because we are considering an accession treaty with a temporary derogation with regard to the free movement of people.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again, because this is an important point that is worth following through. The treaties are not treaties until they have been ratified by the normal constitutional process of all the member states. If, in the normal constitutional process, a reservation with the treaty is found, that can lead to amendments being brought forward later, as with Ireland. There is clear precedent for that within the European Union.

[Emma Reynolds]

There is no clear precedent with regard to the accession of new member states. I believe that such a provision goes against the accession treaty with Croatia that has been negotiated with the 26 other member states and our Government. An amendment of this kind would send us back to the start of negotiations. All 16 member states that have already approved the treaty, and we and the remaining member states, would have to go back to the drawing board, along with Croatia, yet again to reopen what has been a very long and arduous process—a thorough process, and rightly so—for Croatia in its negotiations to join the European Union. This is not like the Irish protocol. It is not a post-factual situation—it has to apply from now on—and it is part of the accession treaty that we are discussing. We cannot just alter it and expect something to happen in future that would help us. I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman.

I would welcome clarification of this matter, given that Opposition Front Benchers do not have a whole army of Foreign Office civil servants to help us—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says and I may be too optimistic about what can be done. There is, however, a disjuncture between what the protocols say and what it is said that they say. The Bill’s explanatory notes state:

“The Irish Protocol clarifies, but does not change”,

but if it does not change anything at all, why on earth was there need for a protocol? Was it a question of bullying Ireland to vote a second time? If it was, that is deeply disgraceful and shows something very rotten at the heart of a European Union that holds democracy in such contempt that when it gets a result it does not like it says, “Well, you must do this again and we will bully you until you give the answer that we, the panjandrums of the European Union, want.”

For once, I am being charitable to the European Union and assuming that when a protocol is agreed, it means something genuine and is a real protection in areas of competence-creep within the European Union. It might be strictly accurate to say that the things for which Ireland has been given its protocol are not currently covered by detailed regulations of the EU or by detailed parts of the Lisbon treaty. The protocol, however, gives Ireland further security. If judgments of the ECJ begin to expand the competences of the treaties, which they have done in the past—as we would understand it, the ECJ is an essentially political rather than legalistic court—Ireland can revert to the protocol.

The symbolic importance of the protocol is great. It shows that a country can push a little bit of a wedge underneath the collapsing portcullis of the EU—once a country is under it, it cannot get back out. The protocol has given Ireland a measure of release from, and clarification on, the Lisbon treaty. The UK could do more because we are a stronger player within Europe and contribute a substantial part of the budget, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). We ought to use our negotiating heft to try to get back powers that, as most hon. Members recognise, the British people want. We should begin a serious renegotiation and say to the EU, “Look, when the next treaty comes through, we want more than Ireland had. We want something that is powerful and strong, and that allows us—the British people—to make our laws for ourselves via Parliament rather than constantly doing so via Europe.” This is a great opportunity for the Government to build on that precedent to the advantage of our country.

[Emma Reynolds]

I want to reiterate what I said on Second Reading about the Opposition’s support for the Irish protocol, which the Labour Government helped to negotiate. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, the protocol clarifies but does not amend the Lisbon treaty. It contains assurances that Ireland retains decision-making rights on the right to life, on family and education, on taxation, and on Irish neutrality. It was the Labour Government’s judgment at the time and it is the Opposition’s judgment now that the Irish people have rightly been offered those assurances on the application of the Lisbon treaty.

Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). The protocol does not reform the EU and is not a renegotiation of the EU-Ireland relationship. It also does not repatriate power from the EU to Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to trouble the scorers again, Mr Crausby. I hope I will not be the only one trying to be the Mr Pietersen of the Committee for this afternoon’s proceedings. My batting pace would never be quite as fast as his—I am probably more of a Mr Boycott, particularly when it comes to anything to do with the European Union.

The transition arrangements for the free movement of people are an important part of the treaty. What is important here is that the time has come for us to recognise that we need to look at whether the free movement of people is something the United Kingdom can any longer support. The commitments we have made to our immigration policy throughout the European Union have made a nonsense of the rest of our immigration policy. We discovered that yesterday, when we asked a very distinguished person to come and be the head of one of the most important institutions of our country. He will have to queue up in Croydon, even though he is married to a British lady, his children are British subjects and he is a subject of the Queen. If he were coming from Croatia, he would be subject to transition arrangements that would make it a good deal easier for him to come here. That does not seem to be a sensible way of establishing our immigration policy.

There are two problems: first, the number of people who have the right to reside and work here from the European Union, which is legion; and the very tight controls that we have to have on everybody else in the world to make the system vaguely work at all. It is out of balance that countries with which we have much closer and longer standing associations than Croatia—I think, of course, of India, Canada, Australia, South Africa and Zimbabwe—and with which we have had intimate relationships, do not have the transition arrangements to allow their people to come and work here. They have to go through an extremely arduous and onerous process. Even if their grandparents were British citizens, they find it very difficult to get here. On the other hand, if they come from member states of the EU they can just waltz in, or if they cannot waltz in, they can come in under transition arrangements. After a mere seven years at the most, they will be able to come in freely. This has become disproportionate.

In that sense, enlargement has created a problem for Europe. In other ways, enlargement is much to be welcomed, and I agreed with the Minister when he quoted the noble Baroness—something that should be done in this Chamber more often to reinforce any argument that is being made. We have found that there are simply too many people who are eligible to reside here. Transition arrangements are not really enough. They ameliorate to some extent the problem of Croatia, but Croatia is not the problem. As we have already discussed, there are only a little more than 4 million people in Croatia, and unless they were all going to come here and leave Croatia empty for us to go and have our holiday homes there as the Minister suggested, there would not be any real immigration problem from Croatia. It is what has happened in the past, and the effect that that has had on other nations with which we are friendly and with which we have long-term relationships and historic ties, that I am referring to.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has decided to look into this to see whether the free movement of people is something we can continue to cope with. I think that we cannot, and as we reform our relationship with Europe, it is one of the aspects of the European Union—I accept that it is a fundamental aspect—to which we can no longer subscribe.

[Emma Reynolds]

Clause 4 provides a regulation-making power to make provision on the entitlement of Croatian workers to work and reside in the UK. We believe that the Government should implement the maximum transition period for Croatian nationals, as we did with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. I welcome the Minister’s commitment on Second Reading to bring detailed regulations on the transitional controls.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. How lucky it is that there is unlimited time for this particular debate.

The Irish have shown with their protocol that it can be done. In fact, this is an exciting opportunity for this country. The Bill will be taken, and will be amendable by, a Committee of the whole House, and there has been much rejoicing at the conversion of the Labour party to deep, true-blooded, thorough-going Euroscepticism.

[Emma Reynolds]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that Labour remains a pro-European party. On Croatian accession and the Irish protocol, does he seriously think that his Government could withhold support for the Bill and negotiate and repatriate all the things that he has just mentioned? I do not think that he believes that to be a realistic prospect, because he is far too sensible.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is as flattering and charming as always, but it is good enough for the Irish, who got some serious concessions. The concession on taxation is a very important one. It establishes that taxation is not to be set at the European level. In fact, it is clever of the Irish to have got it, because Lisbon is bringing in an awful lot of things by the back door and the Irish have managed to close that back door, or the stable door as one may like to call it.

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

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Jacob Rees-Mogg

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am all in favour of scrutiny. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I am the greatest admirer in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who scrutinises with an eye like a hawk and ensures that every aspect of scrutiny is carried out to the fullest, most proper and deepest effect. However, I thought that the new clause might be an example of the socialist sense of humour, which involves tabling a motion that is completely and utterly meaningless and, indeed, the opposite of what the Bill is all about.

Perhaps the Members concerned did not listen to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who explained—beautifully, elegantly and with charm—what the Bill was all about. He also explained what the treaty was about, namely getting us out of responsibility and liability for the eurozone mess so that we would not have to pay to prop up the eurozone. The new clause proposes that the poor old Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has quite enough to do—for instance, he has a growth strategy to draw up, and his infrastructure Bill will be presented to us next week—must write a report on why a fund of which we are not part, and to which we do not contribute, has had an effect on the propping up the stability of the eurozone, which is a matter for the people—

[Emma Reynolds]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Of course I give way to the shadow Minister.

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The Government need to cut through the dither, and the Chancellor needs to see to that as a matter of urgency. However, I do not really understand why the hon. Gentleman objects to the Treasury’s conducting an impact assessment of the operation of the European sustainability mechanism. He takes a great interest in European matters, and I find it surprising that he does not welcome further transparency and further scrutiny of such an important issue.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady flatters me. I do indeed take an interest in the issue.

It is extremely important for the Government to be scrutinised on what they do in terms of European policy, but I do not think that we should scrutinise Her Majesty’s Government in relation to what the Germans or the French do, because that is a matter for them. We are outside this mechanism. The whole point is that a new mechanism is being set up to ensure that there is no liability for the UK taxpayer. What is the Chancellor supposed to say? Must he send a letter to Parliament saying “Something over which I have no authority, something to which we have made no contribution, something which is not actually British in any sense, has worked”, or has not worked? We can read that for ourselves in the Financial Times, or in other reputable newspapers.

We really do not need the Chancellor to be bogged down in more bureaucracy. There is a difference between scrutiny and bureaucracy. Scrutiny is about challenging Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that the Government’s decisions are in the best interests of the British people. These decisions—the European stability mechanism decisions—will not be Government decisions in any sense once the treaty is passed, and once this Act is enforced. They will be decisions over which we will have no control, and that is the whole point. We do not want to have any control, because we are not part of the eurozone, and most sane and sensible people hope that we never will be. It is our aim and ambition to be out of the eurozone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is a real pleasure to speak in favour of this Bill, because it is surprisingly important. The more we have debated it, the more clear its importance has become. It is important because it saves the British taxpayer risking substantial amounts of money. When the treaty was agreed, I was disappointed that we had not asked for more, because Her Majesty’s Government had a strong negotiating position and might have been able to start the process of renegotiation and ask why we did not have a more à la carte Europe, to use a French term, if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, against the preferred guidance of “Erskine May” that one should stick to English.

The Government have achieved something considerable by appearing to be very modest. We have seen the clawback of powers from Europe for almost the first time. Under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, we had opened ourselves up to substantial and potentially unlimited liabilities for the failures of the eurozone. Once it was accepted that article 122 could be used for emergency bail-outs and the regulation was not challenged, it was conceivable that further regulations could be introduced and that, although each one would have been subject to challenge individually, once the first was accepted, there could have been a continuous chain of bail-outs, resulting in billions and billions of pounds’ worth of liabilities for us.

If I may make a cheap party political point—there is an occasion for such a thing—it is worth noting that it was the previous Labour Government who signed us up, during their dying days, to this almost unlimited liability.

[Emma Reynolds]

It is always a pleasure to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. I have in my hand an explanatory memorandum by a previous Economic Secretary, who is now the International Development Secretary. It states:

“The Government regrets that the Scrutiny Committee did not have time to consider this document”—

meaning the document on the establishment of a European financial stabilisation mechanism—

“before it was agreed at Council. It should be noted that whilst agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the previous administration,”

to which the hon. Gentleman has referred,

“cross-party consensus had been gained.”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

When the hon. Lady started with, “I have in my hand”, I thought she was going to say, “a piece of paper”, and that we were going to be promised peace in our time, but, sadly, she offered party political disagreement instead. It was more like a battle than peace. All I would say is that the Government of the day were Labour. I accept that the incoming Government failed to challenge the use of article 122—they should have done that and it was a pity that they did not—but that was where we were: socialist extravagance spending our money and signing us up to bailing out the whole of Europe over and over again.

What did we get in place of that? We got a sound Conservative Government, with the help, for once—the worthwhile, marvellous and delightful help—of our Liberal Democrat coalition partners, who were robust enough, which some might say is most out of character, to support us in getting powers back from the European Union, which has almost never happened before. That is important because the whole basis on which the powers of the EU have been built—the acquis communautaire—has been one whereby it gets powers and never gives them away again. It is the doctrine of the occupied field that once Europe has taken over a policy area, it is in control of it and it never goes back to the nation state.

It is therefore a real triumph for the Government to have got this agreement on the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and that the article 122 mechanism has been cast to history. Although that is not being said officially—we do not have a signed document saying that article 122 will not be used—we have a very strong political agreement between all the Heads of Government and Heads of State, signed up to by the Commission, and, most importantly of all, a new mechanism.

The other good thing about the mechanism and the treaty approach that has brought it to us is that we have a proper parliamentary procedure to ratify it. It is so marvellous and commendable of this Government that they are taking parliamentary accountability and democracy seriously. They could have done it differently. They could have just bulldozed it through on a quiet Wednesday afternoon in a debate lasting an hour and a half or two hours, but they chose not to do that. They introduced a Bill that required a proper process and they actually allowed time for the debate—so much time that we may even finish early. That is another good argument for parliamentary scrutiny—time is not used up unnecessarily in the House of Commons; it is used for proper consideration of what the Government are doing.

This new Session’s resolution can therefore be: let us support this marvellous Government and let us support the Front Bench and Treasury Bench representatives as they go boldly forth. They stand up, show backbone and act like a lion—not, as somebody may have once said, like Bagpuss—against Europe. They make sure that the British position is put clearly and forcefully and that powers are returned home.

There is a great lesson for Her Majesty’s Government in this: when they show backbone, force and courage, not only do they receive rapturous support from Members on the bustling Back Benches, but they receive support from the country at large. As the Brussels directives are sent away and batted back home, so the opinion poll rating rises. I hope that the Government will learn from this and act on it in future.