---

A Citizens’ Agenda

I am not in a position to speak for Conservative Governments in the very distant future, but I can say that the forthcoming Conservative Government will ensure that there is a referendum if any treaty change is proposed that would transfer further powers from this country to the EU. It is our policy to bring powers closer to the people and not see them go further away. We do not believe that power should be ceded without the express support of the people in a referendum. I shall quote further from the Committee’s excellent findings. It said:"““Although the Minister’s explanatory memorandum is significantly better in explaining the Green Paper than his departmental colleague’s in explaining the Commission’s proposals on ‘Europe in the World’…””—" so some marks go to the Minister for that—"““it is no better in explaining the Government’s view on the proposals therein. We do not consider that support for the ‘broad thrust of this Green Paper’ is adequate, and would instead like to know what the Minister thinks of the proposals, and what reply the Government plans to offer.””" On the document ““Europe in the World””, the Committee has this to say:"““We are less clear than the Minister that the position taken by the Foreign Secretary on the question of ‘double-hatting’ and his are one and the same. He seems to be arguing that the Foreign Secretary was referring only to a situation where an ‘in situ’ EU Special Representative was also made head of an extant EC delegation, and that this is in some way significantly different from the possibility that he describes in a future Bosnia and Herzegovina. If there is a distinction, it is one that at present escapes us.””" The Committee goes on to say:"““The debate on ‘A Citizens’ Agenda’ will also provide the House with an opportunity to explore the Government’s thinking on this and other relevant issues, which the Minister continues to be regrettably reluctant to share with it at present.””" I was hopeful that the Minister would take this opportunity to share some of his thinking with the House, but all he has promised is an outline at some point in the future. The Committee went on to note that"““the Minister says that he hopes we find his Explanatory Memorandum ‘informative’. On the contrary, its cursory summary of the Communication is uninformative, as is his statement of the Government’s views””." The Committee then sets out a perfect summary of the British Government’s stance on European policy, by stating:"““The Government’s general position appears to be to shelter behind the obvious absence of any consensus on the future of Europe and to say that it will inform the House of its views once there is one. This is somewhat at odds with the notion of increasing the involvement of national parliaments in decision-making.””" The last in my selection of excerpts from the Committee’s splendid report comes from the conclusion, which states:"““We consider this stance unacceptable, and ask that the Minister provides the government’s views, now, on the detailed proposals in the Communication—which ones he does not agree with, and which ones he endorses.””" I hope that the Minister is embarrassed to hear that catalogue of criticisms from a Committee of the House, and that, even at this late stage, the Government will be prepared to engage in a debate about the future of the EU. The Commission’s initial premise in the document, ““A Citizens’ Agenda”” was the right one: the EU should concentrate on addressing the real expectations of the peoples of Europe. However, the document is punctuated by references to rebuilding the political project that was rejected last year in two referendums—the need to ““embed”” projects in a ““coherent political agenda””; the ““political ambition”” of a new institutional settlement; the need for a political declaration as the precursor to a new treaty and the commitment to the Hague programme, extending EU powers to justice and home affairs. None of that is wanted by the British people, yet the Government have failed to set out an alternative vision. We are left completely in the dark as to their intentions, as was the EU Scrutiny Committee. We should make it clear now that the EU needs a profound change of direction. We should be calling for the centralising projects of the constitution to be consigned to the dustbin and for an end to efforts to take justice, policing and criminal affairs away from national democracies. We should call loud and clear for a more flexible, deregulated European Union and we should start today.