---

European Council, 16–17 June

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement today—an important Statement about the future direction of the European Union. For once, she can be assured that I will not raise the latest atrocities in Zimbabwe or the closure of EU markets to produce from the third world because those critical issues were not even discussed. Free trade was not mentioned in pages of communiqués about ways to help Africa, and in the case of Zimbabwe, Mugabe’s crimes did not even figure in the presidency conclusions. Tragically, while millions in the world face real crises, the EU leaders indulged in a kitchen-sink spat wholly irrelevant to the future of Europe and a gross distraction from the real issues. That collective failure of political leadership shames Europe. Out of this confusion must come some creative thinking. This is the first opportunity for such thinking and we expect tomorrow in the debate that the Leader of the House has kindly provided for the House a detailed Statement from the Government. This House, with its deep knowledge of EU issues, will want more than waffle and rhetoric from an incoming presidency, for which the Prime Minister has had years to prepare. I, too, will confine myself to the two issues that the leaders did manage to discuss and the Prime Minister mentioned in his Statement—the constitution and the rebate. In Her Majesty’s Government’s view, is the EU constitution dead? Yes or no? It is important to know, for much of the current presidency’s conclusions seem about giving the process a kiss of life. In the Statement the Prime Minister said that,"““whatever words are used in Council conclusions . . .  the Treaty cannot proceed””." It is worth seeing what those conclusions were. The conclusions state:"““We consider the outcome of the referendums in France and the Netherlands do not call into question citizens’ attachment to the construction of Europe””" That is what the Prime Minister agreed to on Saturday. But what do the Government mean by that? Is it the Government’s view that the people of Holland and France were bonkers to reject the treaty that the Prime Minister believes is good for the new Europe? If not, then what does that phrase actually mean? We now hear talk of a ““constitution-lite”” being the buzz phrase in the Foreign Office. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Government’s policy is to cherry-pick the draft constitution and try to push through some of it without a referendum? Can the noble Baroness assure the House that, if the Government believe, in the phrase of the Council conclusions, that British citizens are so attached to the construction of Europe that ratification must go forward then the British people will first have the referendum they were promised on 5 May? In the promised period of reflection—only until next spring, please note—the conclusions call for,"““a broad debate to take place in each of our countries””." Does the noble Baroness agree that a referendum might provide that broad debate? Only six weeks ago, the Labour Manifesto said:"““It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe””." But how quickly our words come back to haunt us. How absurd it seems now for the Prime Minister to have written so recently that Britain could be a leading nation in Europe only by ratifying this drowning treaty. The presidency conclusions end with a classic European statement:"““The recent developments—" that means an inconvenient expression of popular will—"““do not call into question the validity of continuing with the ratification processes””." It is glaringly obvious that they do call those processes into question, and, if there are those who do not recognise that, they will end tragically by inflicting even more damage on the European Union than has already been inflicted. If the Prime Minister at this late hour seeks to impose that restraining and realistic hand he can count on our support. But how sad it is that the man—the Prime Minister—who rightly tells us that Europe needs a new direction was the same man who gave away our opt-out from the social chapter that is destroying European competitiveness, and did so for nothing in return. And how sad it is that the man who belatedly and rightly takes up the cudgel for reform of the absurd and indefensible CAP was the same man—the Prime Minister—who agreed to that being set in concrete for a decade as recently as 2002? If the British Government are so much against it now, why were they so enthusiastic then? Is not the truth that it was not until Peter Mandelson rang up and told him that it might be a good piece of spin that the Prime Minister thought of linking the UK   rebate to reform of the CAP? Why was our position so ill-prepared? How was the president of France, President Chirac, able to get away with the political daylight robbery of pushing aside democratic votes condemning a flawed treaty and putting Britain in the dock? How was it that we ended up having our natural friends and allies in eastern Europe ranged against us? Was that not a spectacular own goal, after Mr Mandelson floated the fact that the UK Government were planning to help them? For our part, we support the Prime Minister in insisting that the British rebate can be considered only when the just cause and reason for it—the distortions of the CAP—are addressed and dealt with. Given where we now are, this should be an opportunity, but the Prime Minister begins his presidency dug in, condemned by the current presidency as,"““seeking the failure of Europe””." We deplore such language. We deplore the claim of Chancellor Schröder that history will judge harshly the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. What we on this side would judge harshly is not the faltering, late-coming sense of the Prime Minister, but the ostrich-like view of other European leaders that nothing has changed, nothing needs to be changed, and nothing can be changed. But, as we know, the world has changed. Europe has changed and the EU needs to change, and tomorrow, my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford will set out in detail how Britain must lead the way to a better European future and recover from the mistakes and self-deception that have so far marked the Prime Minister’s approach to Europe. The Prime Minister is in an unrivalled position to set out that future, but it cannot be on the basis of a defunct treaty that only six weeks ago he was telling the country was in Britain and Europe’s united interest.