---

European Council

When the Prime Minister returns from a European Union Council, it is customary to start with those aspects of his statement with which we can agree, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance sight of the statement. On this occasion, I am delighted to say there are more aspects than usual with which we can agree. As the Prime Minister said on a different occasion, ““The kaleidoscope has been shaken.”” I sense—I hope that I am not mistaken—a real change in the way in which he and some of his Ministers are approaching reform of the EU. If that conversion is genuine, no one would be more delighted than me. Let me first congratulate the Prime Minister on protecting the rebate. He was right to insist that Britain’s rebate should remain intact. We fully support him on that. But will he explain to the House what he said to the BBC on Friday: that if he gets the deal that he wants,"““very bluntly Britain would pay more, not less, because of the way it would work out””?" Those are his words, not mine. We agree that the CAP needs radical reform, but if the European Union does less, should not the British people also pay less? With the benefit of hindsight, does the Prime Minister now accept that he was wrong in October 2002 to sign up to the existing CAP arrangements, under which 40 per cent. of the EU budget still goes to an activity that employs just 5 per cent. of the people, as he said? But is there not something even more important than the reform of the CAP? The Prime Minister has talked about a European Union ““fit for purpose””. I agree. Should not Europe’s leaders first decide what that purpose is, and only then how best to deliver it? The 2001 Laeken declaration, which set up the Convention that led to the constitution, was clear. Europe’s citizens"““want the European institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid . . . more efficient and open. Many also feel that the Union should””" not involve itself in every detail"““in matters by their nature better left to Member States””." Is it not true that Laeken asked the right questions, but that the constitution was the wrong answer? As Labour’s own representative on the Convention, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), said last week,"““The Constitution was an overambitious attempt to consolidate an outdated political and economic vision of Europe. Our mandate was to bring Europe closer to its people and we ended up alienating them even more.””" Does the Prime Minister now accept that he has wasted the last two years trying to sell an outdated vision of the European Union, when he should have been making the case for a more flexible, liberal Europe of nation states? The no votes in France and Holland provide us with an historic opportunity to have a much wider debate about the future of Europe, but to do that we must put the European constitution behind us. Only last week, the Prime Minister was talking in this House of finding a way round the votes in France and Holland. Will he now emphatically renounce such language and reject any such attempt? For the last two weeks, the Prime Minister has refused to say whether he thinks that the constitution is dead, yet on Friday he signed up to a statement that made it clear that the no votes in France and Holland"““do not call into question the validity of continuing with the ratification processes.””" If he thinks it still valid to continue with those processes, what does he intend to do about it? Does this mean that we will, after all, proceed with a referendum in this country? If not, what on earth does he mean by that phrase, which he agreed with the other European Union leaders? Last year, the Prime Minister told this House that opponents of the constitution wanted to"““marginalise this country in the European Union””—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1925.]—" that we would end up having to accept associate membership. So has he sent France and Holland their application forms for associate membership? Does he now accept that he was wrong, and that the constitution would have taken Europe in completely the wrong direction? Why else did the Foreign Secretary say last week that we had reached a ““turning point””, and that Europe had been ““trapped in the past””? Would it not be much better for the Prime Minister openly and honestly to accept that the constitution is dead, and that the European Union should abandon its attempts to smuggle in any further removal of power from the nation states, such as through the creation of a diplomatic service? The Prime Minister has rightly called for ““fundamental change and reform”” in the European Union. Will he confirm that during that process of ““fundamental change and reform””, Britain will continue to support EU enlargement—including sticking to the timetable for Romania and Bulgaria to join, and starting talks on Turkey’s future accession? Does he agree that"““the British view is that there should be a modern, flexible, reformed Europe; a Europe ready for the challenges of the 21st century; a Europe that is truly free, based on co-operation and not coercion; a Europe that transfers power back from Brussels to the nation state””?" A year ago, when I put that case in those words to the Prime Minister, he responded by accusing me of ““prejudice”” and of"““a transient populism that betrays the very national interest that it says it safeguards.””—[Official Report, 21 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1085–86.]" But he said on Friday night that he was not now prepared to accept that there is only one view of what Europe is. We welcome that, and we trust that whenever anyone presents a vision of the European Union that differs from his, he will no longer routinely accuse them of wanting to leave the EU. A recent report for the European Commission concluded that the EU faces the ““exit ramp of history””. In his new spirit of openness, conceding that there is more than one view of Europe’s future, will the Prime Minister now accept that while some member states may want to integrate more closely, it should not mean that everyone has to? Does he agree that we will create a truly flexible EU only if Europe’s leaders adopt a ““live and let live”” approach in future? Will he now accept that the status quo is a recipe for certain economic decline and that we need urgently to create a decentralised outward-looking deregulated European Union—a Europe that would be better placed to cope with the competitive challenges of globalisation and the emerging economies of the east? Will he also now accept that people of whatever country want to feel a sense of solidarity with and pride in the institutions that serve them, and that the institution that best provides such solidarity and sense of pride is the nation state? If the Prime Minister uses Britain’s presidency to take a lead in Europe, arguing for a more flexible and more accountable EU with powers returned to the nation states, we will support him every inch of the way.