---

EU Constitutional Treaty

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, on the timeliness of his Motion, but I was saddened not to hear even a word of praise for the European Union. There must be something right about the Union, but I fear that the subtext may have been that withdrawal is the preferred option. I will give some comments on the current state, at the end of a period of reflection. I shall talk about some of the options available, refer to President Barroso’s important speech last week and look at a possible way forward. The key point is that we have come to a turning of the ways on the constitution. With France and the Netherlands, two founding countries, saying ““No”” even before we came to the more sceptical countries—Poland, the Czech Republic and ourselves—it is clear that the constitution as drafted, alas, is dead. We should proceed on that basis. I hear what Chancellor Merkel said in her first speech on European affairs to the Bundestag last week; she effectively said that, during the German presidency in the first six months of next year, the Germans were planning to give new momentum to the debate. That is unlikely, of course. There will be the French presidential elections at that time and, in my judgment, what she said refers more to the coalition pact between the CDU/CSU and the SPD than to the realities of the time. The fact is that even in France, as the Libération poll showed this week, 98 per cent of those who voted no said that they would confirm that decision if there were a referendum now. I think that the German proposal is unreal. I would only hope that the Germans would invite John Cleese, who appears apparently fairly regularly on German television in respect of the World Cup, to show his parrot sketch. The parrot is dead and the constitution is dead, and we should proceed on that basis. I will not go through the various options available because time would not permit, but a very helpful speech was given this week to the IPPR and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung by the deputy leader of the SPD in the Bundestag. She said that the options include: the continuation of the ratification process; the renegotiation of the constitutional treaty plan B, if one wishes; the implementation of some institutional reforms, or cherry-picking; the various opt-out options; the removal of part 3 of the treaty, which I understand to be the option put forward by former President Giscard d’Estaing; the abandoning of part 3 altogether—or, as Premier Verhofstadt said in his pamphlet the United States of Europe, a pioneering, or core, group. For each of these options, there are obviously major drawbacks. Some interesting contributions were made last week, one by Chancellor Merkel to the Bundestag and another by President Barroso in his press conference on Europe Day and in a speech to the Future of Europe Group. Chancellor Merkel endorsed the constitution treaty, saying that she and Germany wanted it, which begs the question whether a referendum on the eurozone or on the constitutional treaty would have succeeded in Germany. In my judgment, that is unreal. One should proceed on the basis that the constitution treaty was agreed—by consensus, yes—but is now dead. More interesting, in my judgment, is the speech given by President Barroso. He is not encumbered by a coalition agreement, as is Chancellor Merkel. He said:"““But it is clear that there is as yet no consensus on the institutional settlement””." Those words are very interesting. Throughout his speech, he did not say that the way forward was by a constitutional treaty; instead, he used the pregnant words, ““institutional settlement””. He said that we should answer the expectations of our citizens; that is surely the best way to create a climate in which the ““institutional issues””—the same word—can be tackled. He went on to make other similar remarks. In my judgment, there appears to be some recognition in the Commission by the President that times have changed and that we need to reassess where we stand. I argue that in some areas we need to have more Europe and in other areas less Europe. We need to work this out on a consensual basis with our partners. The noble Lord mentioned justice and home affairs. Surely the problems of immigration, of migration generally and of organised crime that face our Europe are all part of a theme that demands greater intervention by us together as Europeans. We should also explore energy policy as Europeans. These are areas where Europe needs to work together more closely. In other areas, there is a case for less Europe. In her speech to the Bundestag, Chancellor Merkel, said that 25 per cent of EU regulation should be taken off the backs of business. That may well be a proper theme for the German presidency in the first six months of next year. I think that the realistic approach is to move step-by-step, recognising that there is a European consensus on moving forward in certain areas, save among a band of Euro-sceptics whose real agenda is withdrawal in any event. It is worth working towards a European consensus in various ways. Finally, I shall observe that for me the most encouraging part of the Barroso speech was this: he talked about trying to look seriously at subsidiarity and at the role of national parliaments, which must become more involved in EU affairs. I commend for consideration his announcement:"““First, the Commission wishes to transmit directly all new proposals and constitutional papers to national parliaments, inviting them to react so as to improve the process of policy formulation . . . Second that the Commission step up its political engagement with national parliaments””." That is surely a new recognition that we should welcome. It challenges this House to re-examine the procedures in this Parliament and it is part of a realistic package to reconnect and move forward on the basis of a citizens’ Europe, not a bureaucrats’ Europe.