European Affairs

Part of Orders of the Day – in the House of Commons at 2:32 pm on 18 June 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Edward Davey Edward Davey Shadow Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Foreign Affairs) 2:32, 18 June 2008

If we do not get a clear, timetabled approach from the Irish Government, finishing by October, there will be serious questions about the whole process of ratification, whether by the UK or beyond. The Irish Government must come forward with a clear timetable. I say that as a pro-European, because the pro-European cause would be seriously undermined if we had months and years of procrastination and delay. Whether one takes the Conservative interpretation of the Dutch, Irish and French referendums or other interpretations, there are clearly concerns about the treaty. Unless the Irish make their intentions clear in a relatively short period, it is probably right for the Lisbon treaty not to go ahead.

I say that as someone who supports the Lisbon treaty. I think that it has many benefits, but I have always argued that it is a modest treaty. Unlike some Conservatives, who thought that it was an earth-shattering major treaty, we have always argued that it was about sensible improved democratic accountability and the efficiency of the institutions, and included some welcome measures on issues such as energy policy. Were the treaty to fall, therefore, it would not be a disaster for the European Union. Indeed, the EU could operate on the Nice treaty. That is not something that we—unlike those on the Conservative Front Bench—seek, but it is true.

We have heard reference—implicit by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks and direct by the hon. Member for Ilford, South—to some of the academic work on how the EU has functioned since the Nice treaty, especially that by Professor Helen Wallace. That shows that member states have managed to get through. I have spoken to Helen Wallace about her work. She does not necessarily accept the right hon. Gentleman's full conclusions, because she believes that the Lisbon treaty would improve the situation further and would have many other benefits. Nevertheless, the European Union can go on without the Lisbon treaty if that is what transpires.

The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks has been very negative about the Nice treaty in the past. He now seems to be rather less worried about it, but he did say of it:

"Is not the truth, when we cut through the spin, that the agreement"— the Nice treaty—

"represents three more major steps to a European superstate?"—[ Hansard, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 351.]

Perhaps he can remind the House what those three steps were, and whether he has any intention of opposing them in future, should he ever come to office.