John Redwood

|

Extracts from the Rt Hon John Redwood MP from the Standing Committee of the future of Europe

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): I am grateful to our representatives forreporting back. From all that we have heard and seen, it seems that theEuropean joyriders are still in our car, that the car is thundering throughthe night, that it is raining and that they are trying to keep us in thedark about the power grab. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston isto be proved right about the charming visage that she presents of a suddenoutbreak of democracy and national independence within the European Union,surely we must see a massive transfer of competences from the Union tomember states, the abolition of the qualified majority vote and therestoration of the veto; and there must be a clear statement that powerswill be transferred back. Can she tell us of any power, on any importantarea, that is likely to be returned to member states? Can she tell us of anyveto that will be restored? If not, I cannot believe a word of what we haveheard.

Ms Stuart: It is refreshing to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, and thoseof us who were in danger of dozing off have thoroughly woken up again.However, he misunderstands the Convention process. It would be whollyinappropriate for the Convention to pick out particular areas at the end ofthe year, but it would be appropriate, while consolidating the treaties, forus to establish a mechanism to allow that to happen. At present there is nomechanism, and there clearly must be one. It is also clear that, forexample, any treaty would have to include a clause on leaving the Union. TheConvention's role is to pull treaty provisions together, make them moretransparent and allow for a two-way flow. I am confident that that willhappen. Which bits flow which way is a political decision, which we willhave to face later.

Mr. Redwood: Is it not the case that the possible subsidiarity ''lock on thedoor'' will apply only to future transfers of competence from member statesto the EU, and not to things that have already gone?Ms Stuart: Yes, that is absolutely right.

Mr. Redwood: The Euro train is still rushing through the night, and isclearly going to the terminus in the Euro state. I would like to think thatour representatives might cast a few of those British leaves on the line toslow it down a little and make the journey more attractive. Let me suggest,in the two minutes remaining to me, the kind of things that we should do tomake the process a little more democratic, fairer and more connected to therealities of our constituents and our country.

First, member states should have the right to propose repeal of Europeanlegislation so that we can get some of it off the statute book. Secondly, weshould ask for a transfer of competence over important matters such asfishing and farming. The common policies have done enormous damage in ourcountry and it would be much better if those matters were back under Britishdemocratic control.

Thirdly, if the Community already has legal personality, it does not need anew convention or treaty to establish it. If it does not have such a legalpersonality, it is very undesirable that it should. We should reverse theMorton's fork that we have been given this evening-the suggestion thatbecause it has it, it should be given it again.

My fourth point is that we should ask that legitimacy come democraticallyfrom member states. Many more things should be done by intergovernmentalagreement rather than Commission decisions behind closed doors. Fifthly, weshould say that when the Community legislates on behalf of theCommunity-which I hope that it will do less frequently than it has done-itshould do so in the open, before the press and the public, and with someonepresent who is charged with the task of opposing the proposalsdemocratically. At present, everything is legislated behind closed doors,with no formal opposition.

Mr. Redwood: Can the noble Lord point to any aspect on which the EU hasshown its ability to control money, spend it wisely and deliver a goodresult for Britain?

Lord Maclennan: I think that I could without a great deal of difficulty. Thecontrol of the structural funds, in so far as this country has beenconcerned with that matter, has been extremely beneficial to some of themore depressed regions. There is a need to consider what should and shouldnot be done in Europe. That is at the heart of the Convention, which is whythere is a trade-off between a proper constitutional settlement that setsout, as clearly as may be, the shared competences, and one that abandons thenotion that we are on an escalator with ever-closer union as a ratherfrightening goal. That prospect is frightening because it is uncertain andbecause to do that would clearly go beyond the principles of subsidiarityand proportionality to which we are attached.

We should remind people that we need to have national power and control overthe big issues, because if one does not have that one has no legitimacy,with the result that, when something goes badly wrong, it will fracture theUnion.

Mr. Redwood: To strengthen my right hon. Friend's point about the HomeOffice pillar, does a European arrest warrant with 32 offences notcompletely blow that pillar away and make a European criminal jurisdiction?Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, that is right. We saw how the press treated theissue of the plane-spotters in Greece. Such things will become an almostweekly occurrence if British citizens are extradited for crimes that are notnecessarily crimes in this country. That makes my point about the sense ofremoteness and alienation, which will be compounded if we communalise thesesensitive issues.