---

EU Constitutional Treaty

My Lords, I welcome the initiation of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. It is timely, and it is of great value to hear so articulately presented the case for disengagement from the European Union. He couched his case in such clear and, indeed, stark terms that it would be followed by a remarkably small proportion of those people who are engaged in working with Europe or in business in the context of Europe since it would be clear to most of them that the course he commended would render us on the outside, an offshore island with very little leverage to influence the decision making of the countries with which we do, as he admitted, the bulk of our business today. In response to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I think he would do well to recognise that the constitutional treaty was not only initiated by all the then member governments in the Laeken declaration, speaking as representatives of their own countries in the council, but was approved and signed by all 25 member governments. That is a measure of support for the work done by the convention—of which I had the honour to be a member—as least as far as concerns its identification of the issues that were apt for consideration at that time. I do not believe that the referenda in France and the Netherlands have entirely altered the perception of the European peoples of the necessity of the European Union. Indeed, post referenda surveys of opinion showed that 88 per cent of the population in France and 82 per cent of the population in the Netherlands were positive about the working of the European Union, not on the precise formulations of the treaty. Many explanations have been offered of why the treaty was rejected in both those countries. It is obvious to those of us who watched what was happening and, indeed, to those who marginally participated in it, that in the Netherlands no case whatever was made by the government for the adoption of the treaty. No explanations were offered, and the government took the view that they should allow by some sort of process of osmosis the truth of the treaty to emerge in the consciousness of the voters. With the benefit of hindsight, I think we can suggest that that was not a very sensible approach. France is also at the end of a long period of somewhat discredited government. Those of us who know how referenda work are conscious that votes are not always cast on the precise issues that are before the electorate. But I think it is clear that there were concerns in France about the treaty, probably most of all—something to which again the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to—the sense that a sufficiently social Europe was not being predicated in the treaty. None the less, the ratification by the fifteenth member state of the Union—Estonia—last week indicates that there is still a groundswell of positive approval. We understand that it is quite likely that Finland will become the sixteenth. Although it may well be that at the end of this period of reflection member states will take the view that they do not wish to advance to the citizens of Europe the treaty in precisely the form in which it was cast and to which they have already given their assent, much of the underlying perceptions should be reflected in any new settlement. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that the settlement has to be a legal settlement, which can be given effect to by the institutions of the European Union; and how otherwise, I ask, than by a treaty? The reality, which is at least as powerful as the rejections in France and the Netherlands, is an awareness in the European Union that globalisation is either a threat or an opportunity. For many it is a threat to jobs and to the competitiveness of the European countries. It is not at all surprising that there is still a strong underlying sense that nations in Europe should group together and reach conclusions which enable them to be at least equal players in the world in which China and India will increasingly play a large part. I must say that I found the implication—perhaps it was more than an implication—the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, that we, the British, should somehow or other align ourselves with China and India in our new relationships flies in the face of reality. We shall be gobbled up alive if we do not associate ourselves with those countries which are comparable to us in terms of their commitment to democracy and to the well-being of their citizens and with a common understanding about human rights and justice. The great danger for the Union at this time is not so much the specific rejection of the treaty, although it has not been finally rejected, but that it may not be capable of delivering with its present decision-making processes. There is a lot of optimism around that the Lisbon process, following the recommendations of Wim Kok, can be somehow or other recharged; that we need not alter the balance of power between the institutions; and that all the nations need to do is to strap themselves up and recognise the virtue of these objectives of the free market. That seems to me to overlook greatly the necessary role of legislation in giving effect to these overriding goals. Another sphere of policy is the commitment to and awareness of the need for an energy policy. We have had Green Papers calling for transparency, observation points and the like, but we have not yet had anything that suggests that the Union might be capable of being effective. To conclude, on the point about the Union’s ineffectiveness, I draw attention to the extremely current concerns about immigration. Despite having transferred responsibility from Pillar 1 to Pillar 3 on immigration, the constitutional arrangements do not allow the decisions to be taken that need to be taken. I really do think that, in this period of reflection, we must aim for an agreement to give greater power to the Union’s institutions to act democratically where there is agreement on the common interests of the member states, and to entrust the Union’s institutions with that power to get on with the job.