Speech on EU Constitution

Speech by Dr Denis MacShane, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Europe Minister, 9 September 2004

I'd like to thank honourable friends and members for contributing to today's debate on the EU Constitution, the first of many in the coming months. I am pleased to see that everyone has come back refreshed from their holidays, although, perhaps inevitably for the party opposite, old arguments are still being peddled. I encourage you all to read the White Paper, which explains the treaty and shows how the government met its negotiating objectives in more detail than I have time to go into here.

This Treaty is good for Europe. It replaces the current two-treaty structure with a single coherent text, explaining exactly where and how the EU is allowed to act. It introduces much needed reforms to the institutions of the EU, which were originally created for a Union of just 6 Member States, ensuring that enlargement will work effectively. It replaces the rotating presidencies with team presidencies, encouraging Member States to share expertise and experience, providing continuity and direction for the EU as a whole, and ensuring that the voice of national governments is stronger in an enlarged EU, rather then weakened by dilution and incoherence. It increases QMV for areas of cross-border importance: terrorism, illegal immigration and drug trafficking. It introduces a more flexible way of working through 'enhanced co-operation', allowing member states the flexibility to take part in new areas of action without obliging others to do the same.
But more importantly, this treaty is good for the UK.

Hon Members might bear in mind the verdict of the French newspaper Le Monde for example "Whatever people say, this text remains a British victory"

(26 June 2004). We should permit ourselves a little patriotic pride at this - and at comments like that of Alain Duhamel - another distinguished commentator from across the Channel - who opined that "Giscard has created a great British Europe" (une formidable Europe britannique). (RTL Radio, 16 June 2003). Members opposite do their best to represent as some kind of defeat a Treaty which is seen everywhere else in Europe as a British victory. They must not get away with it.

Under the principle of subsidiarity in the new treaty, more powers are being given to national parliaments. For the first time, national parliaments will be able to examine proposals from the Commission when they are at draft stage, and send them back if they disagree. This 'yellow card' mechanism, is a formidable instrument that will compliment the work of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Select Committee on the EU. It is an important step, and one that the Conservatives never managed to secure. It is achievements like this that show the influence that we have when we engage with the EU, working for reform from the inside. Rather than attempt to dismiss this, members opposite would do well to concentrate on how this unprecedented opportunity can be used constructively.
But the EU is about more than Parliament. It is about the lives of our constituents, and those lives have changed substantially since we joined the EC in 1972. This summer, many people will have benefited from cheaper flights, rules covering package tour operators which forces them to provide compensation if they change or cancel your holiday, and emergency hospital treatment for holiday makers, all of which have been brought about by the EU. Most importantly, British people now have the right to travel, work, study and live visa-free across the EU. British companies are able to export to a huge single market of over 450 million people, a larger market than the US and Japan combined. Together, EU Member States tackle international crime, pollution, and terrorism, making their citizens safer and healthier. These benefits are frequently overlooked by opposition members and the tabloid press - simply because they can't distort the facts and turn these real life benefits into eurosceptic myths.

Former Treaties, comparison with Maastricht
Some members of the opposition seem intent on fighting the battles of Maastricht and the European Communities Act. We have already agreed to the primacy of EU law - it was confirmed in the referendum of 1975. We have been European citizens since the Treaty of Maastricht. These are established principles of the EU.

Single European Act.
Among the articles it made subject to QMV are:
Free movement of workers;
Freedom of third country nationals established in the Community to provide services;
Guidelines and conditions for establishing the internal market;
Mutual Recognition of national measures in areas affecting the internal market that had not yet been harmonised;
Health and Safety of Workers.
The Single European Act is a good illustration of the weakness of measuring the extension of QMV by the number of policy areas in question. The single market - by far the most important and far-reaching source of EU powers, was created largely from only two articles being moved, with the support of the Thatcher government, to QMV. This is far more important than a dozen areas of administrative decision being moved to QMV.
Maastricht
Created the European Union and declared that we were all "citizens" of that Union. It created the Common Foreign and Security Policy with a loyal co-operation clause almost word for word as it appears in the Treaty.
It transferred 30 policy areas from unanimity to majority voting, including education, public health, consumer protection, development co-operation, transport safety. It transferred to co-decision policy areas including free movement of workers, treatment of foreign nationals, internal market measures, education, public health and environment. It gave the EU new powers in justice and home affairs issues for the first time. And it established a single currency.

QMV
The Treaty has moved certain areas - areas in which we believe co-operation and progress are essential - to QMV. This is a good thing - we need cross border co-operation in Europe to help tackle shared problems such as terrorism, illegal immigration and drug trafficking. We are rarely outvoted with QMV - twice in 2001, once in 2002. Without it we could not have constructed the Single Market or made progress on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. We therefore welcome the use of QMV as the general rule for legislative proposals.

Parliamentary Scrutiny
We have actively sought Parliament's views throughout the negotiations.
The innovation of a Standing Committee, first on the Convention, and then to debate the Convention's draft text and inform the IGC negotiations. Since the beginning of the IGC, there have been 20 debates on the floor of both Houses. Sessions of the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, attended by the Foreign Secretary on occasion as well as the Minister for Europe. Detailed Government responses to over a dozen Reports of Select Committees. All these represent, to our knowledge, an unprecedented level of Parliamentary attention to an EU Treaty before it has even been agreed.
We have fully encouraged that level of Parliamentary attention, because we believe that Parliament should influence the negotiations as they take place. But all this represents only the start of the scrutiny of this Treaty. A proper legislative process involves the drafting of a Bill to give the Treaty effect in UK law.
The Constitution encourages the scrutiny of EU business by national parliaments through the 'yellow card' mechanism which gives this House the right (and the responsibility) to comment on Commission proposals when they are still in the draft stage.
Rather than scoring party political points, we as a Parliament should recognise this opportunity to engage at the start of the legislative process, to improve EU legislation, to comment, to improve scrutiny. Believe me, the European Commission will take very seriously the views expressed by national Parliaments - especially, dare I say it, this Parliament. We should grasp this firmly, not turn up our noses.

CFSP
If we look at CFSP, there is not a single foreign policy imposed on the UK by other European states and none can be. We clearly still pursue our own foreign policy. But there are times when 25 member states delivering a common message and acting together carry more weight than the UK acting alone - for example : working together to bring the Balkans further along the path of long term peace and stability or the EU's ability to launch peacekeeping missions as we did at the request of the UN last year in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Polling evidence shows many people feared Britain would lose control of foreign policy, or lose our seat on the UN security Council. These concerns were fuelled by eurosceptics - whether from genuine concern or a desire to alarm people. It is now clear that they were groundless. I hope all Members will join with the Government in reassuring people on this point. The British veto over EU foreign policy remains. The British UN seat remains.
The fact is that the EU has had a common foreign policy since Maastricht. Where EU members all agree, they act together. Common sense. EU punches with more weight when all its members act together - 450m people. But - like on Iraq - where we don't agree, we act independently. CFSP only operates when there is consensus between states. Not a single foreign policy imposed by Brussels.
In particular, time to lay to rest the persistent myth that a draconian new principle of "loyal co-operation" will force Britain to obey Brussels in foreign policy. This has been enthusiastically spread by eurosceptics. The facts are plain. Loyal co-operation is not a new principle. Simply spells out what was agreed in Maastricht, and works perfectly well. Means Member States work together when we agree. Very sensible. Does not mean we are forced to obey, cannot act alone, need Brussels permission to go to war, or any other myths applied to it.
No change to what was in the Maastricht Treaty:
EXISTING: Treaty of Maastricht (Article 11(2))
"The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations".
NEW: Treaty Article (III-195 of CIG 86/04)
"The Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations."

Primacy
Primacy is not new. The European Court ruled that Community law has primacy over national law in 1964. When we joined the EEC, the European Communities Amendment Act 1972 (Section 3(2)) said that "Judicial notice shall be taken of the Treaties ... and of any decision of, or expression of opinion by, the European Court." In other words, we accepted primacy by joining the EEC. The rule is just common sense: everyone has to abide the decisions they make at EU level.
Without primacy, all EU treaties and agreements would be completely worthless.
Anyone who opposes primacy of EU law is arguing for a free-for-all where countries ignore rules as they please - for the EU as we have known it for more than 30 years to be torn apart. You cannot have a single market with twenty-five different sets of rules.
The Lords EU Select Committee, in its 6th Report of this year, said: "It is not surprising that… the Constitutional Treaty includes a statement of the primacy of Union law. The doctrine is a well established and key element of the Community's legal order."
The Treaty clearly and explicitly states this principle for the first time in its Article I-5a (previously Article I-10). A Declaration attached to this Article will spell out that:
'the provisions of Article I-10(1) [on the Primacy of EU law] reflect existing Court of Justice case law.'

Renegotiation / Remaining in the EU
I am confident that a majority of the British people want us to remain in the European Union.
I am not so sure, when it comes to the party opposite, what they see as our future in Europe, and whether they want us to remain in it. Some of them are openly sympathetic with proponents of withdrawal. The Hon Member for Stone's pamphlet of October last year, 'The European Constitution - A Political Timebomb', advocates a two-tier Europe where the UK is relegated to a relationship of trade and association with the EU.
Their leadership is trying for some kind of feeble compromise with those ideas. Along the lines of, "we'll stay in Europe but make sure it works badly". "We'll stay in Europe but very reluctantly". The hard truth is, we are either in or out.
What we hear from them are ambiguities and promises that can't be fulfilled; proposals from their backbenches for an "associate membership" of the EU. Followed by suggestions from their front bench that they could re-negotiate signed agreements. The truth is that other member states don't think we get a raw deal out of Europe. Because we have made those agreements work for British interests and as a result we have done well from our membership of Europe.
Europe isn't just an airy concept. The European Union is not just a set of laws. This isn't a drama played out in the corridors of Westminster and Brussels. This is about jobs. It's about families. It's about our constituents.
It's about a market of 450 million people, bigger than the USA and Japan. We export three times as much to that market as we do to the US. To do that we need to keep its rules. That's what a single market is all about.
There are three million jobs in UK companies that are estimated to depend on exports to the EU. Research suggests that enlargement should create 300 000 new jobs in EU countries [Profiting from EU enlargement: the costs and benefits in perspective, Heather Grabbe, Centre for European Reform for the European Round Table of Industrialists, July 2001.]
Europe matters. We don't want this country to end up on its margins, limping along with a derisory "associate membership". We want it to remain one of its biggest players, continuing to shape its agenda, working to spread its values wider and wider through the continent of Europe and beyond.

Why the Treaty is a good result for the UK
Throughout the two years of negotiations we fought hard to secure our objectives. And we were successful. In the final text we retained unanimity for tax, social security, Criminal procedural Law, Own Resources and as the general rule for CFSP.
Our European partners consider that we were successful in achieving what we wanted: The French called the Constitution 'La Britannique', The German President announced a "revival of the nation state". Belgium's Le Soir newspaper even went as far as referring to "A text in the service of Her Majesty".

This is a Treaty we can be proud of and we are happy to put it to the people of this country.