---

European Council, 16–17 June

My Lords, it is probably only human nature, but we expected a little dancing on the grave from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In my view, he had his tap-dancing shoes on, but I see that a number of clog-dancers are in their places, so we shall probably hear from them later. This is certainly an opportunity for creative thinking. We should start by answering the question, ““Do you think that a Europe of 25 or 27 needs a rule book or framework in which to operate?”” If you think that it does—and it seems pretty obvious that that is the case—we may perhaps hear tomorrow from the Conservatives how they think that that framework should be created. Of course, Europe also needs a budget agreement, though not today or tomorrow; we do not need to rush for deadlines. In fact, Europe might be all the better for a more considered approach. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord   Strathclyde, and the whole country, that the Prime Minister has total support in drawing attention to the anomalies that the CAP has produced and will continue to produce in the budget. It is right that he takes that argument firmly and clearly to Europe. Indeed, I hope that he will take the argument for reform not only in this country but to a wider European audience, where if it is properly presented—as the Prime Minister did in his press conference, comparing it into the investments into R&D, education and so on—the case for reform becomes almost unanswerable. Since his presidency coincides with the G8 presidency, he can also take the case to the United States and Japan, which are also agricultural protectionists that distort world trade. The Prime Minister can rely on support when he says that it is those of us who believe in Europe who now must be most ardent advocates of changing it. But we must put that in the right context; Britain has an almost 100 per cent unblemished record, over 60 years, of underestimating and misjudging the attitude of our fellow Europeans in the kind of Europe that they want to build. Whatever the French and Dutch people may or may not have voted for, they certainly did not vote for an EFTA mark 2, which seems to be on offer from the Conservative Party. It has been the constant delusion of certain elements of British politics that somehow we can persuade our European colleagues that a European free trade confederation is all that is needed. Perhaps for the first time, I agree with the Foreign Secretary on Europe. He said very wisely that,"““our position as a leading power in Europe makes the UK stronger and more influential in the world””.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/05; col. 286.]" That is the heart of the matter—and that is what the Prime Minister should be about in moving forward and making the most of this unique opportunity. Trade issues are certainly important, but apart from trade there is hardly a major issue facing us as a country—from globalisation to the environment to the war on world poverty and the debate that we have intervened in today—in which our role in Europe is not part of the answer. We wish the Prime Minister well in starting this presidency. We hope that he will give the kick start that the Lisbon process certainly needs, that he will start leading by example, by improving parliamentary scrutiny here in Britain, and that he will bring forward such elements that are in our power to make Europe more transparent and accountable. But for the rest, I believe that my right honourable friend Charles Kennedy had it right in another place, when he said:"““As Britain takes on the presidency, the responsibility is ours to try and build a new consensus and to build a new sense of optimism about Europe””." If the Prime Minister does that, he will certainly have the support of these Benches.