---

European Council

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. We support action on climate change, so we back the commitment to a new Kyoto-style treaty. We support enlargement of the EU so we welcome the accession talks with Turkey. There are genuine concerns about Turkish recognition of Cyprus and how Turkey treats Cyprus at present. The summit conclusions refer to the EU’s"““capacity to absorb new members””." Can the Prime Minister assure us that that is not a new obstacle to Turkish membership? Those of us who want the EU to be a force for co-operation, trade, stability and democracy on our continent should support further enlargement. Does the Prime Minister agree that that enlargement should eventually include all the western Balkans, Ukraine and, perhaps, even Belarus? We back deregulation and we shall want to see concrete results from what the Prime Minister told us today. We have long supported greater openness and transparency at EU Ministers meetings, so should we not all be relieved that the Foreign Secretary completely failed in her extraordinary attempt to block the opening up of EU meetings to public scrutiny? When it comes to building alliances to block transparency the score, apparently, was 24-nil. As well as opening up the EU’s decision making, we should be reducing its costs. Does the Prime Minister support the growing campaign for the European Parliament to sit in just one place, rather than wasting hundreds of millions of euros moving between Brussels and Strasbourg? Let me deal with the two most contentious issues at the summit: criminal justice and the future of the constitution. On criminal justice, will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that Britain will not give up its veto in that vital area? Our criminal justice system may have been reduced to chaos by the Government but that is still not an argument for handing it over to the European Union. Three years ago, the then Minister for Europe—I am sorry to see that the current Minister for Europe has not even made it on to the Treasury Bench today—warned that ending the veto could"““change fundamental principles of our legal system””." Can the Prime Minister explain why the Government now apparently have an open mind on the issue? The European Commission has said that if we had no veto it would want to look at issues such as Belmarsh. The Prime Minister and I agree that ultimate responsibility for dealing with terrorism must lie with the British Government. Is that not an issue on which the Prime Minister should look to the long term, take a firm stand and not hand over responsibility for something that he will later regret? Abolishing the veto in those areas was a key part of the European constitution. Does the Prime Minister understand that reintroducing such changes without a referendum is completely unacceptable? Is it not clear, after two decisive referendum defeats, that the European constitution should be declared null and void? The Prime Minister repeatedly told us that the constitution was essential to make enlargement work, yet Die Welt has said recently that"““the last 12 months have shown that Europe can live without a constitution””." Does the Prime Minister accept that his argument about the constitution is being disproved by events? Is not the real alternative an open and flexible Europe? May we have a clear answer from the Prime Minister about the issue? The Austrian Federal Chancellor, who chaired the discussion, said:"““There is…agreement that the substance of the Constitutional Treaty is sound and should be retained.””" Does the Prime Minister agree with that? Or does he agree with the Labour party’s representative on the constitutional convention, who is in her place, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)? She said last week:"““The first thing the Government needs to do is to state categorically that the Constitution is finished. Like the parrot: dead, deceased and no more””." The Government are perhaps starting to look a bit like a Monty Python sketch so perhaps it is time to say: and now for something completely different. Instead of his usual pre-prepared rant, will the Prime Minister just answer two simple questions? They concern the key issues at the summit. Will he give up the veto on home affairs and is the constitution dead—yes or no?