---

EU Constitutional Treaty

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for introducing the debate so coherently and for putting so cogently the case for a new look at the way our relationship with Europe is to be established. If the EU and its leaders are well known for anything, it is their refusal to accept the results of democratic referendums. The Danes voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and were ordered to vote again until they got the answer right. The Irish voted against the Nice Treaty in 2000 and they too were told to go back to the polling booths and to stay there until they got the answer right. Last summer the French and the Dutch voters blew a large raspberry to the whole idea of the European Union and the constitution. That should have been that as far as the constitution went because it explicitly had to be ratified by all parliaments, and the Dutch and the French blew a hole in that. But, entirely true to form, the usual motley collection of Euro grandees simply could not accept the result. For example, just a few weeks ago, Mr Giscard d’Estaing put it like this:"““The rejection of the constitution is a mistake that will have to be corrected””." I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who invented a new Euro word—groundswell. If you lose the vote on the constitution, or any vote in a referendum, you can ignore that because you can say that there is a groundswell of feeling in Europe that you should go ahead with the project even if there have been votes against it. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, was, I am afraid, at it again when he said that the relevant people were not really voting against the constitution, they were voting against Turkey perhaps or, as I think he mentioned, globalisation, or McDonald’s or the colour of Mr Chirac’s socks—anything but the questions that were on the ballot paper. The concept of a groundswell constitutes a mindset. Whatever the votes may indicate, the groundswell is there. That will become a new Euro word. It does not matter what happens or what the people say or think, we have the groundswell behind us. I like that. Obviously, the President of the Commission likes that too. He said:"““People are asking for more Europe””." That presumably means that he has not looked at his own Euro barometer polls, which show that support for the European Union is falling rapidly all over the place and is down to something like 30 to 32 per cent in this country. But, again, he possibly relies on the groundswell. The German Chancellor, Frau Merkel, was quoted as saying in an address to the Bundestag a week ago:"““I want the constitution, the German Government wants the constitution, and I think the majority of this parliament want it too””." The notable absentee, of course, from that list is the German people. They presumably will not be asked. They will be told that there is a groundswell of movement behind the constitution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who is not present, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who is, that the constitution is not dead at all; it is not even in intensive care. It has been in rehab and it is now undergoing physiotherapy. The ““Eurocracy”” is busy putting the constitution through. That is quite plain to anyone who has looked at the European papers and the work coming out of the Commission. They are pushing it through as hard as they possibly can, of course without the approval of national parliaments—that would be too democratic for words—but there is the groundswell behind them. The reality is that the EU is carrying on as though the constitution were ratified and as though the French and Dutch votes simply did not exist. All the institutions that needed the constitution to legitimise them are already either in place or are being put in place. A short list includes the EU Space Programme, the European Defence Agency, the common asylum policy, the External Border Agency, the Fundamental Rights Agency and the EU external action agency. That body, as my noble friend Lord Waddington pointed out, comprises the so-called ““ambassadors””, who like to style themselves ““Their Excellencies””. On top of that we have the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which, as we now know, has to be enshrined in all EU legislation. We have been told that by the Commission, so we simply cannot argue with that. My noble friend Lord Waddington touched on the use of Article 308—and asked the Minister to comment on it, to which request I add my voice—to justify the introduction of those various offices. My noble friend Lord Pearson has tabled several Written Questions on that matter but the answers were not terribly convincing. Article 308 gives the Council of Ministers and the Community power to act where they feel it is necessary but—and this is the important thing, and I quote from the article—it gives the power only,"““in the course of the operation of the Common Market””—" nothing else. It is quite clear that the EU has been ignoring that particular proviso in Article 308. It is introducing objectives that have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Common Market. I hope that, when he winds up, the Minister will reply to the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I have raised. It is extremely important to legitimise in some way these new agencies that should have died with the constitution, if the constitution is dead. Will the Minister please tell the House the Government’s reaction to the introduction of EU-wide criminal law and sentencing? Last September the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU has the right to require EU states to introduce criminal laws to uphold EU legislation in combating pollution. That judgment was specific to pollution, but the Commission has gleefully seized on it as a pretext to enlarge its grasp on all other law. It has said that the principle will apply across all policies. I believe that it has already identified seven areas in which it intends to introduce legislation. That legislation will be decided by qualified majority voting. If or when Britain is outvoted under QMV, these laws and sentences, even though we disagree with them, will still have to be introduced through Parliament into our law. They will not be debated or voted on by our elected Parliament or by this House. Is that what the Government want? Is that what they agree with? If not, what do they propose to do about it?