EU Expansion

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): I praise the spirit in which the hon. Memberfor Caerphilly (Mr. David) moved his address. He recognised the number ofproblems relating to the successful integration of applicant countriesintothe European Union. Part of my case is that if the EU moves too quicklywithits agenda of more centralised power and an ambition to cover anever-widernumber of policy areas in greater detail, the task of applicant countrieswill become more difficult.

During the EU's development there has always been tension over whether itshould open its doors more widely to countries that are properly part ofthecontinent of Europe, or whether a limited number of countries shouldrapidlypress on with centralisation to create a type of grand federal Germany atEUlevel. That tension is seen today: on one hand we have a conventionunderwaythat is trying to create a constitution for the European 15; on the other,there are the detailed and difficult negotiations of several applicantcountries, which have been sketched by the hon. Member for Caerphilly.

Thosewould dearly love stronger links with our democracies and our prosperoustrading system in the west, but they are finding the hurdles of thecurrent15 difficult to leap, let alone the hurdles that integrationists are keentoput in their way.

I remember being moved at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s whenthe Berlin wall came down and many brave people led peaceful, but decisiverevolutions for freedom, enterprise and democracy in eastern Europeancountries. At the time, I was privileged to be a Minister of the Crown,andwent on several journeys to welcome peoples and their interim Governmentsinto the community of European democracies. The first thing that touchedmethen was that, on more than one occasion when I was travelling in anambassadorial car that was flying the United Kingdom flag, people salutedoreven kissed the flag because they were so impressed that this country hadstood against Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s, and against communism in the1950s, 1960s and 1970s. They loathed those systems, as I do, because theyboth eclipse freedom, damage prosperity and make the lives of people whowish to have independence of thought and movement a misery.I was impressed by the first impulses of those countries as they began tograsp the heady atmosphere of freedom. They wanted two things beforeanything else: the restoration of their national flags because for so longthey had not liked being under the Soviet colours; and, however small thecountries, the restoration of their old national currency, because thatwasseen as a symbol of more control over one's destiny. Small countriesdecidedthat the rouble monetary union was not a good idea for them, and that theywould rather have control over their own independent monetary system as anexpression of their national sovereignty. I urge Her Majesty's Governmenttounderstand those feelings. I am keen that we should extend the Europeanfamily and community ever more widely.

Mr. Hopkins : Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that when othermemberstates join the European Union, they will be less willing to join thesinglecurrency because they would want to retain their own currencies as asymbolof their modern freedoms?

Mr. Redwood : If one consulted their people, many would remember the verydeep and strong feelings that they had some 10 years ago when they graspedtheir freedom from the Soviet empire. I am suggesting that ourGovernment-above all others in the current 15-should be sympathetic tothatand understand that the single currency is becoming a barrier to thesuccessful conclusion of a wider union rather than an open invitation.

Afterall, the Government welcome the single currency in principle, and believesthat it is a good idea.

We have suffered under, or enjoyed, this Government for five years andtheyare still unable to pop the question to the British people because theyunderstand how unpopular the idea of the single currency is in Britain.Manypeople deeply understand that controlling the currency is not just asymbol-it is not just about keeping the monarch or head of state on thecoinof the realm-but something very real concerning democratic, politicalpower.

It gives current and future Ministers the opportunity to control interestrates and have an influence on borrowing or the exchange rate, andthereforeto influence imports and exports. That control and influence would be lostif our currency were taken away.

If the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) will forgive me, I donotwish to get diverted into a debate on the euro. The debate is aboutEuropeanenlargement, and the euro is one of many hurdles that the European Unionisplacing in the way of the applicant countries. The hon. Member forCaerphilly said, quite rightly, that there were questions to be resolvedconcerning agricultural policy, and possible movement of capital andpeople.

I share his vision of agricultural policy getting away from subsidy andover-provision that causes considerable expense to the taxpayer. Indeed,ifI can believe the Government's policy statements, it is one that theyshare.

Unfortunately, the Government are unable to deliver it given the currentconfiguration of the European Union.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly should understand that we cannot leave thecommon agricultural policy on one side. The CAP is the biggest, mostimportant and most expensive EU policy. That leads one to question howmanymore of those centralised policies we want, given the infernal mess thattheEU has made in recent years of many parts of the agricultural industry inBritain and on the continent. The CAP is expensive to the taxpayer and tothe consumer. That is a remarkable contribution of bad luck-we pay twice.People pay more in the shops and as taxpayers, and the policy is not verygood for British farmers either.

Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West): I am not an advocate ofthe common agricultural policy in its present form. However, does therighthon. Gentleman at least recognise that changes are taking place in theEuropean Union? For example, a year ago there was a change of agricultureministry in Germany, which made a significant difference in pushing thereform debate forward. Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact thatthe rural development part of the CAP is growing? We must ensure that itgrows at the expense of the traditional part. Rather than being defeatistabout the matter-not to say that the right hon. Gentleman is-and sayingthatwe cannot secure change, we should be part of the great momentum forchangethat exists.

Mr. Redwood : I am suggesting that we should be more forceful andpersuasivebecause change is much needed. I welcome any changes on the continent thatmove in the right direction, but as the right hon. Lady conceded in herintervention, it is relatively easy to set up another subsidy scheme ontopof the scheme we already have, which is not working. It is far moredifficult to tackle the underlying problem: a subsidy scheme for farmingbased on wrong propositions, which conspires to be bad for taxpayers,consumers and farmers in a relatively advanced agricultural society liketheUnited Kingdom, whatever its impact might be elsewhere.

Bob Spink (Castle Point): Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the CAPwere fundamentally reformed to make it less intrusive on the taxpayer andoncountries in Europe, that would open the door for even further enlargementand put a light at the end of the tunnel for countries like Turkey? Thatwould add to the great benefit of Europe about which the hon. Member forCaerphilly (Mr. David) spoke-that is, to spread security and stabilityacross Europe, which is what it should all be about.

Mr. Redwood : I agree that the lower we can make the barriers, by reducingthe cost and complexity of common policies at federal level, the easier itis to bring other countries in. My ideal would be a European Union ofindependent national democracies co-operating together. That is a goodalternative model, which the UK should advance at the constitutionalconvention. It is wrong for us to give credence to the idea that tameproposals are likely to emerge from that convention; that the aim is notthecreation of a superstate. We all know that the agenda is to create anEU-type state, modelled along German constitutional lines. The lines mightbe perfectly democratic, but it will be a superstate. We should say thatEurope is not ready for that-it is not suitable for all its differentpeoples, nations and traditions- and that we shall get on better togetherifeach country has room for its own national aspirations and forms ofdemocratic expression.

It is crazy that the people of the countries that we seek to invite intoourmidst risked and gave so much to recreate their old nations some 10 yearsago, yet we now expect them to take on an enormous amount of central powerin Brussels, designed by countries at different levels of development andwith different attitudes. The tension that occurs in enlargementnegotiations is always resolved in the EU by going for morecentralisation.

The centralisers, or federalists, always say that if more participatingcountries are brought in, that will slow the thing down. Therefore, theysay, we must at the same time take more central powers to avoid suchslowingdown. Indeed, they often aspire to speed it up.

What are they trying to accelerate? What are they trying to prevent fromslowing? They are trying to stop the deceleration of the great legislativemachine-the centralising machine that trundles on day by day. I havesympathy with those who wish to slow down or stop that machine. There mustcome a point where there is enough European law. My constituents do notwakeup in the morning and write to me saying, "We feel that we need moreEuropean laws. Please prod the Government into getting more," whereas Ioften receive letters from people who say, "We do not want a European lawonthis or that. We want to trade with our partners in Europe and to befriendswith them; we want to see whether we can reach agreement on mighty mattersrelating to foreign policy or the environment, but the last thing that wewant is a legislative machine churning out hundreds of directives andregulations."

The centralisers always say that we need more laws in order to completethesocial or environmental area or the single market, to have a commonforeignpolicy or to prepare for a single army. They fear that the admission ofdifferent countries such as Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic wouldgetin the way of the pursuit of their agenda of more laws and more centralcontrol, with more trappings and more power going to the superstate in themaking. I should like the British Government to say that this enlargementshould be different. We should say that we joined a common market-theBritish people voted for that and British Governments past and presenthavebeen supporters ofthe minimum level of law needed to create a common commercial and tradingarea to spread prosperity through trade, but I do not see why the BritishGovernment should sign up to extending European government power into somany more corners. If we were a strong and clear voice for a genuineEuropeof nations, in which we did together those things that everyone agreedneeded doing without constantly pressurising countries and peoples intoaccepting laws that they did not want and which they had voted against, wewould stand for something good and true, which could advance, rather thanset back, the cause of European integration.

That brings me naturally to the curious case of the treaty of Nice. TheBritish Government have consistently argued, often in a partisan spirit,that the treaty of Nice contains the minimum that is necessary to completethe arrangements for the applicant countries, but anyone of independentmindwho reads the treaty can see that it is mainly concerned with giving morecentral power to European institutions. It is about removing vetos that wecurrently enjoy and replacing them with qualified majority voting. It isabout creating a series of new common policies, some of which are set outinthe recent Government document, "Realising Europe's potential: EconomicReform in Europe", and there are parallel measures for the common foreignpolicy and the common military policy that is being evolved.

The treaty of Nice is more about centralising than about enlargement. Ofcourse, some items in the treaty are necessary for enlargement. It isnecessary to rebalance votes and determine the numbers of Commissioners-Idonot disagree with that; it is a necessary part of enlargement-but becausethe treaty goes so much wider and includes chunks of centralising agenda,ithit the buffers when it was put to a vote in Ireland. Who would havethoughtthat Ireland would object to such a treaty when Ireland has been a greatbeneficiary of subsidies and trade with the European Union, which onewouldhave thought would overwhelm any demerits that Irish people might see inthescheme? However, the Nice treaty was so centralising and claustrophobicthatthe Irish decided that they could not live with it. I hope that memberstates will learn from that lesson and understand that free peoples anddemocracies are likely to respond "No" to such a centralising treaty. TheBritish Government would not dare to put the treaty of Nice before theBritish people because they know that we would run a rattling goodcampaignagainst it-making the points that I have made, that the treaty is aboutnotonly enlargement but centralising and grabbing power-and that we wouldwin.

Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston): Given what the right hon. Gentleman saysaboutthis Government, why was the Maastricht treaty never put to the Britishpeople?

Mr. Redwood : I would have liked it to be. As the hon. Gentleman mayremember, I resigned from the then Government over several issues,includingthe handling of the single currency and the Maastricht treaty, which Iwanted to be put before the British people. However, I was very pleasedthatwe obtained an opt-out from the main point of the Maastrichttreaty-joiningthe single currency-an opt-out which I am delighted this Government are still usingand, I suspect, will continue to use for the rest of their life. Thatabatedthe problem, but there is no opt-out from the Nice treaty, so theGovernmentdo not have the excuse that the Conservative Government had in the case ofMaastricht.

The Government should understand that the people of western Europe-and, Isuspect, the peoples of eastern Europe-now desperately need a voice in thepowerful councils that meet behind closed doors in Brussels and otherleading centres to say that they do not want more centralised power, butwant their national democracies to be respected. We think that we can getonbetter with each other if we are allowed a little freedom and somelooseness, rather than having everything controlled centrally.

The Minister may like to comment on how he sees the negotiations onagriculture going, because he must concede that, far from settling all theimportant issues that must be resolved before enlargement, the Nice treaty leaves out the most important issues: the handling of agriculture and ofthebudget. We need to know how much enlargement will cost existing members.What are we prepared to pay for it? We all want to enlarge the Union, butweneed to know whether the own resources ceiling will be increased andwhetherthere will be big tax increases for people in Britain, France and Germany.If there is not a big tax increase to pay for enlargement, we need to knowwhich elements of the budget will be cut. s soon as we bring new andpoorermembers into the Community, they will naturally-on the basis ofproportionality and population-receive more than their fair share of moneyfor agriculture, transport and infrastructure projects from the socialfund.That will mean less money for the western countries. While that may beperfectly fair, I would like to see the numbers.I would far rather achieve enlargement by amending the budget than by abigtax increase. I do not think that a big tax increase for the westernEuropean peoples would be a good idea at the moment. There may be more tobesaid about that tomorrow, once the tax-raising Chancellor has disclosedhisdomestic requirements. If, on top of domestic requirements, we are to faceabig requirement for enlargement, we should at least know the numbers andhave an opportunity to debate such an important matter.

Will the Minister use the opportunity for renegotiation that enlargementoffers to sort out fishing? There are some sensible words on fishing intheGovernment's latest document. However, the British fishing industry isbeingdestroyed. The common fisheries policy is another example of a centralisedcommon policy that does not work for Britain. Now that everything has toberenegotiated because we are considering proper enlargement, can we pleasedig in and get some common sense and a better deal for our fishermen?The Minister may also like to comment on the Government's recent statementthat one of the European Union's main aims at the moment is to"reach an agreement on the tax package as a whole as soon aspossible and no later than by the end of 2002."

Will the Minister tell us what that package is likely to comprise? We arenow well advanced into 2002. Are the negotiations well advanced? How manymore new taxes will emanate from the European Union and how much controlofour tax policy is envisaged under the new tax proposals? Those matterswillmake it even more difficult for the applicant countries, because they willnow learn that they are joining a club that has not only very centralisedagriculture, fishing and social policies but substantial ambitions totransfer some of the powers of taxation from national democraticassembliesto the centre, the federal core, which may or may not become moredemocratic.

Will the British Government on this occasion speak the truth and speak outfor a Europe of nations where we respect each other's differences? Willtheyspeak out for a Community in which we do things together where we wish todoso and are able to reach voluntary agreement? Will they speak out againstamore centralised Community? Will they speak out against a Community thatwishes to tax us more and involve us less? Will they speak out against aCommunity that thinks that the treaty of Nice is the answer toenlargement,when the real answer is sorting out difficulties such as the budget andthecommon agricultural policy?

Will the Government speak out for a Community that believes thatdemocracy,freedom and enterprise can best be spread by making more decisions locallythan centrally and by encouraging the brave, democratic forces in theeastern European countries, rather than trying to take powers away fromthemand give them to bureaucrats at the centre? Above all, will they take onboard the message of the Irish referendum and be prepared to face theBritish people on the issue by putting the resulting package to a sensiblereferendum test?