---

European Council: June 2006

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Rarely has an EU summit attracted so little publicity, in glaring contradiction to the title of the first chapter of the presidency conclusions, which is ““Europe Listens””. Where is the evidence that EU leaders have listened in any way to the concerns of people about the trend towards more regulation and integration? Will the noble Baroness confirm that this summit agreed to more integration on immigration, asylum, criminal procedure, industrial policy, consumer protection and foreign policy? Where is all the rethinking in that? Was the noble Baroness the Leader of the House as surprised as I was that the conclusions made no reference to the rejection of the constitutional treaty by the people of the Netherlands and France, except in the Newspeak of paragraph 43 of the conclusions that:"““Two Member States have been unable to ratify . . . [but] It is hoped that this process will be completed in line with the conclusions of June 2005””." Is that the UK Government’s view? Has nothing changed in the so-called ““period of reflection””? The conclusions blandly declare that,"““citizens remain committed to the European project””." Is not the problem that the Brussels definition of the EU project is miles apart from the wishes of millions of EU and British citizens? The conclusions call for ““concrete results”” in achieving what the EU constitution proposed, but European electors rejected, by noodling inside the present system. Where is the listening there? Is that also the UK Government’s view? It calls for a further report on a constitutional treaty in spring next year and necessary steps to legislation in 2008. Is that the UK Government’s view? Do the Government want a new treaty? I am fully aware that no Government can bind their successor, but I hope that the noble Baroness will know the answer to this question. Is the commitment to resurrecting a treaty supported, not only by the Prime Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Finally, will the Minister accept that there must be a referendum on any EU constitutional treaty and that the manifesto pledge to the electorate before the last election that they would be consulted must be good for the whole Parliament? Of course, there were things we supported at the summit, such as action on climate change, but what discussion was there of ensuring energy security? Was any concern expressed about a potential 60 per cent dependence on Russian gas? We very much support the enlargement of the EU, so we strongly welcome the accession talks with Turkey. For too long, this proud and great nation has been toyed with by the EU as if we were still living in 1683 and not a 21st century in which a model of secularist Islam offers a key to a more stable world. We have long supported greater openness and transparency at EU Ministers’ meetings. Supporting that was a rare success for the Prime Minister over one of his Cabinet colleagues. The Minister may not know the answer to this question, but perhaps he could ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to open up UK Cabinet meetings in the same way. How fascinating that would be. Finally, I turn to regulation and criminal justice. On regulation, was it not a bitter disappointment that the best the summit could agree was that it might be possible to ask the Commission to make proposals in 2007 about the possibility of setting targets to reduce regulation? What a sad outcome, when businesses are groaning today about EU red tape. How can we have any confidence in a process that pays lip-service to deregulation but says that the acquis communautaire cannot be touched? On criminal justice, in 2003 the Europe Minister, Mr Hoon, said that ending the veto could,"““change fundamental principles of our legal system . . . which we are not prepared to accept””." So why do the Government now apparently have an open mind? Would it not be rash indeed to abolish the veto now? Will the Minister give a guarantee that Britain will not give up its veto in this vital area? The Government, over the past few weeks, have said that the system that they have been running for nine years is already in a dysfunctional mess at home, with Ministers making open attacks on civil servants, police and judges. Surely it would be madness to add to the mess by inviting European dictation to those same civil servants, police and courts. The ultimate responsibility to deal with terrorism must lie with the British Government. Abolishing the veto in these areas was a key part of the European constitution. Does the Minister understand that reintroducing changes such as these without a referendum is completely unacceptable? When will the Government take a stand against the integrationist tide and hold firm for the real alternative option, a flexible Europe? The last year has shown how Europe can live without a new constitution. However sweet the Austrian wine, is it not high time to cut through the dinner-table complacency, state categorically that the constitutional programme is finished, and that the UK will play no part in smuggling it in by the backdoor and will insist on the right of a referendum for the British people?