---

EU Constitutional Treaty

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Blackwell for initiating this debate at a time when the period of reflection or apparent inactivity is coming to an end. I also congratulate him on his honesty in declaring his willingness to not only contemplate but perhaps look forward to life outside the European Union. However, what makes him think that the other 24 nations would leave us in a position of enjoying all the benefits but sharing none of the burdens, I really do not know. I would have supported the treaty had we had the proposed referendum, which decision was in itself a misguided act of political capitulation. In my opinion, nevertheless it is unrealistic to believe that the treaty as drafted is going anywhere. We are always reminded of the rejections but never the approvals. Is Luxembourg’s referendum irrelevant because it is a small country? Although a majority of member states have approved the treaty, any attempt to change the outcome of the French and Dutch referenda would in my view be doomed to failure. Any new treaty in the foreseeable future would itself need the approval of all member states and would be likely to fall at a referendum fence somewhere in the Union. But if we are to take the rejection of the treaty by France and the Netherlands as a rejection of everything contained in the treaty, no progress will be made or reforms made, which are urgently needed. As well as repeating much of the existing treaties, the treaty contained a number of important changes which would have enhanced the ability of the Union to act effectively. What, then, is to be done? We are frequently told that the real issues facing the European Union are globalisation and competitiveness, not institutional change. Who doubts that? Certainly not the president of the Commission, who has made it clear that it must be a priority. But who is advocating powers being given to the Union to deliver the Brussels agenda if the member states fail so to do? Reform of the budget is needed to deal with the CAP and increase funds for research and development. In the area of justice and home affairs there are recognised problems with terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime. Do we still need to act unanimously under the existing treaties, or would we allow decisions to be taken, as the existing treaties do, under qualified majority voting? Institutional problems will continue and will only be resolved with a treaty change. The Union is about to expand to 27. We have made it clear to the nations of the western Balkans that their future lies in the European Union. Should we be unable to keep faith with them, the effect might well be at best uncertain, or at worst disastrous for them and us. Until there is a treaty change, progress will only be made in the immediate future if we find ways of using the existing treaties to implement agreed areas of activity, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Brittan. We will not, as I understand it, be able to resolve the size and organisation of the Commission or easily resolve the problem of the rotating presidency, both of which the treaty addressed. We ought to be trying to achieve, where it is possible, and I acknowledge that it will not always be possible, a credible and well resourced strong European foreign policy. I am told that the European Union spends more on office cleaners than on CFSP, so we either have a very under-resourced foreign policy or extraordinarily clean offices, to say nothing of alleged embassies. We need someone to fulfil the role of the European Foreign Minister, or whatever title is given if there are sensitivities about that. We should be able to arrange our affairs to enable a high representative to fulfil, if not all, a large part of what was envisaged for the Foreign Minister role without treaty change. I submit that the Foreign Minister—or whatever he is called—will need the support of the envisaged External Action Service. That would have given support, but even without treaty change surely there must be opportunities for joint working between Council and Commission with the member states acting individually to achieve that support. There has been criticism of the European Commission representative offices in other countries. Your Lordships’ House not long ago adopted a report of the European Union Committee on at least one occasion when it was said that the representative offices were under-resourced and ineffective. We cannot criticise them in one way and then in the other. What about the enhanced role for national parliaments? Is that to go out with the bathwater as well? We will be told by our opponents, as we have already been told, that we are seeking to introduce the treaty by the back door, but we will be told that whatever we do or do not do—witness the European Defence Agency, which was the subject of a new article in the treaty but is already in existence. It was set up by Council joint action on 12 July 2004 under an article of the existing treaty. That is the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, which he has tabled for after the Recess.