---

EU Constitutional Treaty

My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity provided by this debate. I speak as someone who welcomed the agreement on the constitution and supported it, and regret its rejection by France and the Netherlands. If you look at attitudes towards the constitution, there are two completely contrasting myths that cannot both be right. On the one hand there are those in the Euro-sceptic camp here who claim that this constitution would have forced the UK into a more centralised, dirigiste Europe. Had you crossed the Channel to France, you would have heard loud and clear, in the course of the debate on the constitution referendum, the argument that this was intolerable because it would have imposed an Anglo-Saxon social and economic model on those who did not want it. The truth is that both of those analyses were myths. They confused agreements about how decisions should be made with the direction in which the decisions should go. The reality was that the constitution would have made the changes to the running of the European Union needed to make the decision-making process operate at all smoothly in a greatly enlarged European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has vividly described some of those. It would also have helped the EU to develop a more effective foreign and security policy and thereby play its proper part in world affairs. None the less, for whatever reasons, however mutually contradictory they may have been, two countries rejected the constitution. The question is what happens next. When that has happened in the past small changes have been negotiated, explanations and supplementary policy statements have been agreed, and new referenda have been held. That route is not open this time because the rejection in each of those countries took place not because of objections to specific clauses that could be changed but for much more general reasons. So what do you do? I do not think that the prospect of gradual implementation of the treaty by the back door, which some have feared, is either realistic for those who want it or something to be feared for those who do not. On the other hand, it seems completely illogical to say that something should not be done that can be done without a treaty, just because it is also referred to in the treaty. The example that is given most commonly and naturally in parliamentary discussion is the proposal to give the national parliaments a much greater say in the implementation of European legislation and in its discussion and debate. It is quite perverse to say that, just because that is referred to in the treaty, we should not agree to it if it is put forward outside the treaty, if it is in our interests and is something that we want. The suggestion that in a systematic way you should look to see which parts of the treaty are not controversial and implement those is a different matter. What is not controversial in one country will be highly controversial in another. That is not a realistic way forward. Nor do I consider a realistic process the proposal that has been put forward to divide the treaty into the institutional changes and the much longer part of the treaty that consists of the consolidation of previous treaties, to agree the former and have a new referendum on that. It will not meet the real concerns of the people in countries such as France and the Netherlands who voted against the constitution, and in other countries who might have done so if it had been put to the test. The right way forward is to seek to regain support for the whole European project and to produce practical benefits for the peoples of Europe from the process of working together in the context of the European Union. In the long run what will improve the EU’s economic performance is economic reform. In the short term, as we have seen in France from the failure of the very modest labour reform that was proposed by the French Government, such reform is very unpopular. None the less it is a mistake to believe that progress cannot be made in the European Union. If you look at what is happening in Germany today, considerable progress has been made. The actions taken by the previous Schröder Government and the present Merkel Government in bringing about that reform are uncannily similar, although until they got together in a coalition each party was extremely reluctant to admit that. It does not matter from the point of view of Europe whether progress is made by individual decisions at different times and in different ways by national governments or by common Europe agreement. What is important is that progress should be made in this direction and Europe should move forward. There are some things that simply cannot be agreed and where progress cannot be made except on the basis of a European agreement. That applies above all to co-operation on immigration, crime and matters of that kind, which know no frontiers, and where without agreement at a European level we will simply not achieve the improvement in the quality of our lives that our citizens rightly want. Does that all mean that the constitution is not necessary? It means nothing of the kind; merely that it is not possible or feasible today. It does mean that the time will come when something similar to it will be required, and we will have to go back to these issues. It will not be same document and the same instrument as has been rejected in France and the Netherlands. Time moves on, and the thing was absolutely not faultless. But the issues will have to be addressed, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, gave, in the context of an enlargement that all political parties in this country have been enthusiastic in demanding. I am proud of the fact that we, whether in the Commission, in Parliament or in government, were at the fore of bringing about that enlargement. We should be at the fore of bringing about further enlargement in the future. We cannot wish to have the end without having the means. We have to face up to the reality that the institutions were creaking in every possible respect. This is not the first enlargement. We expanded and expanded, only tinkering at the edges. It is a shame that this constitution was called a constitution, because I agree that it really is not, any more or less than other treaties have been. It is actually slightly less radical than things like the Single European Act, which my noble friend Lady Thatcher encouraged this House and the other House to pass without referendum and with a three-line Whip. That was a very wise thing for her to do, and we have to realise, respect and understand that that wisdom was very great, and prevailed. We also have to recognise, however, that what this treaty is doing is much less than that. We will have to return to these issues, but not quite yet.