Proceeding contribution from Tobias Ellwood (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 December 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on European Affairs.
European Affairs
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first comment, he makes my point for me: the organisation was a trading platform and we should endeavour to go back to that—that is what I am suggesting that we do. Instead, it has taken on a political dimension; it has morphed into something quite different from what it started out as. On the second point, he is absolutely right that France is holding that up, but I do not see the British Government jumping up and down and pushing France and asking other countries to join us in saying, ““What a waste of money that is.”” Let me move on to what the EU could do. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if the Minister for Europe listened. I thank him for doing so. The EU could play a very positive role in the reconstruction and development efforts in Afghanistan. He will be aware of the lack of co-ordination between the United Nations, the EU, the Department for International Development, the USA and the myriad non-governmental organisations in that country. There is no single overall co-ordinator with the authorisation to knock heads together and to move the reconstruction efforts forward. That is one area in which the EU could actually play a very positive role. I was saddened to discover during three visits that I paid to Afghanistan in the past year the mess that is being created because international agencies are unable to co-operate and work together. Huge sums are being wasted. Yes, there are some successful small projects, but given the scale of operation required to move Afghanistan forward, the EU could play a leading role, bearing in mind its power and organisation. I turn finally to the balance between the EU as a security element and NATO. NATO has served us well in the past 50 years, providing the umbrella of security that Europe so needed. Unfortunately, there are elements within the EU that would like it to create its own security force, which would be absolutely wrong. I want the Government to confirm that they will commit themselves to NATO’s long-term future and not allow an EU-style security force to grow in conjunction with it. The Minister for Europe might say that the two forces could work side by side, but I put it to him that that cannot happen. The EU security forces that are already in existence are double-hatting with NATO operations and overlapping them, thereby causing confusion within the military structures. That needs to change, and we need to recommit ourselves to what NATO is actually for. Britain has a proud history of standing up where other countries have remained quiet—of taking the initiative politically, diplomatically or indeed militarily, when other countries have stood on the sidelines. The EU is going down a river and nobody is willing to grab the rudder. Britain has a prime opportunity to take advantage of that—to show some initiative and provide a new direction for the EU that is worthy of all sovereign states, not just Britain.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 454 c398-9
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Climate change Carbon dioxide Immigration Environment protection EU accession EU enlargement European Constitution Treaty EU common foreign and security policy EU economic policy EU justice and home affairs Pollution control Migration NATO Russia Turkey European Council EU defence policy
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:33:33 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363790
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363790
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363790