EU Constitutional Treaty

– in the House of Commons at 3:31 pm on 6 June 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary 3:31, 6 June 2005

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the EU constitutional treaty, following the no votes in referendums in France and the Netherlands last week. I shall explain why we have decided to postpone the Second Reading of the European Union Bill.

At the end of 2001, European leaders met at Laeken in Belgium to consider the future of the European Union. Just three months before, the world's sense of order had been shattered by the atrocities of 11 September.

Reviewing the progress made within the European Union over previous decades, European leaders at Laeken said that the Union

"stands at a crossroads, facing twin challenges, one within and the other beyond its borders . . . Within the Union, European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens; beyond its borders, the Union is confronted with a fast changing, globalised world."

It was that Laeken declaration which led to the Convention on the Future of Europe and to the intergovernmental conference that followed it. Negotiations in that conference were hard fought; but the United Kingdom achieved all its objectives and my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

The United Kingdom achieved all its objectives, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I therefore had no hesitation in recommending the new treaty to Parliament and to the country.

We did so not least because the European Union's organisation plainly needed reform the better to cope with the new challenges set out at Laeken, and with the enlargement to 25 member states. So the treaty includes a reduction in the size of the European Commission; a much better voting system, which benefits the UK; an end to the six-month rotating presidency, with replacement by a full-time President of the Council and team presidencies; better arrangements for involving national Parliaments in EU legislation and greater flexibility through "enhanced co-operation", to allow groups of member states to co-operate more intensively while others go at their own pace. And we kept our national veto in all key areas of concern.

On behalf of the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister and I signed the constitutional treaty in Rome on 29 October last; but, like any other EU treaty, it requires ratification by every one of the EU's member states—now 25—before it can come into force. To date, nine countries have approved the treaty through their parliamentary processes, and one—Spain—by referendum. In the last week, however, as the House and the country are very well aware, in referendums the electors in France voted no by 55 per cent. to 45 per cent., and in the Netherlands by 62 per cent. to 38 per cent.

The constitutional treaty is the property of the European Union as a whole. It is now for European leaders to reach conclusions on how to deal with the situation.

To give effect to the United Kingdom's commitment to ratify the treaty by referendum, we introduced the European Union Bill in the last Parliament, and it was given a Second Reading by the House by a majority of 215 on 9 February, but the Bill fell on the calling of the general election. It was therefore reintroduced in this new Parliament on 24 May—before either the French or Dutch referendums—and it would in normal circumstances have been scheduled for its Second Reading very shortly. However, until the consequences of France and the Netherlands being unable to ratify the treaty are clarified, it would not in our judgment now be sensible to set a date for the Second Reading.

There is also the need for further discussions with EU partners and further decisions from EU Governments. The first opportunity for collective discussion within the EU will take place at the end of next week, when Heads of State and Government meet in the European Council. We shall, of course, keep the situation under review, and ensure that the House is kept fully informed.

I should emphasise that it is not for the United Kingdom alone to decide the future of the treaty, and it remains our view that it represents a sensible new set of rules for the enlarged European Union. We reserve completely the right to bring back for consideration the Bill providing for a UK referendum should circumstances change, but we see no point in doing so at this moment.

As I commented during last week, these referendum results raise profound questions about the future direction of Europe. The EU has to come to terms with the forces of globalisation in a way that maximises prosperity, employment and social welfare. There are other large questions, too. How can we strengthen the force for good of the EU in foreign policy, along with aid to poorer countries and trade? How do we ensure value for money for our citizens and better regulation? And how do we make a reality of the widely agreed concept of subsidiarity, so that decisions are made at the lowest level possible?

All those issues have long been central to the United Kingdom's priorities for the European Union, and will be so for our EU presidency, which begins on 1 July. The continuing objective of enlargement and the issue of future financing will also be on our agenda. At the start of the presidency, I will publish the latest in our series of White Papers on the EU and make an accompanying statement to set out our priorities in more detail.

Let me conclude by saying that the European Union remains a unique and valuable achievement, central to the UK's prosperity and well-being. The world's largest single market has enabled the businesses and people of this country to earn new prosperity by trading freely across borders. European co-operation has broken down barriers to travel, work and leisure. And the EU remains a vital engine of peace, democracy and reform.

The EU does now face a period of difficulty. In working in our interests and in the Union's interests, we must not, however, act in a way that undermines the EU's strengths and the achievements of the past five decades, and we shall not do so.

M

If the EU were truly "a vital engine of peace", as Jack Straw implausibly claims, it would expel the UK for illegally invading Iraq, and insist that Blair, Straw, Blunkett & the rest of the New Labour Cabinet are put on trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Court.

Submitted by Michael McCarthy

Photo of Liam Fox Liam Fox Shadow Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs)

I should like to thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his usual courtesy in making a copy available in advance.

What we would have liked to see from the Government today is a little less spin and little more humility. The idea that the United Kingdom achieved all its key objectives at the intergovernmental conference or kept our national veto in all key areas of concern is a complete fantasy.

This constitution is bad for Britain and bad for Europe, and it has now been comprehensively rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands, yet the political dinosaurs at the helm in France and Germany, and the army of Eurocrats whose careers depend on the gravy train, act as though nothing at all has happened. What is it about "no" that they do not understand? I may no longer practise medicine, but I can tell a corpse when I see one, and this constitution is a case for the morgue if ever I saw one. This is a dead constitution.

What is the response of our Government? Is it to be bold and give a clear direction? No, it is, "We see no point in proceeding at this moment." What does that mean? Do they want to proceed at another moment, or soon, or never? What are they waiting for—a lead from the people of Luxembourg? What it means is that the niceties of EU diplomatic etiquette are being put before sound reason. It is not the hand of history on the Prime Minister's shoulder, but the hand of Peter Mandelson. This complacent, condescending response could have been faxed directly from the offices of Barroso, Chirac or Schröder: "Put your Bill on hold, but don't stop the process. Don't rock the Euro boat."

The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that it is not for the UK alone to decide the future of the treaty. He is wrong. Rejection by the British people would bring an end to this wretched process. The loss of the constitution is not a crisis for the people of Europe; it is an opportunity. The crisis is a crisis of leadership. While our Government dither about what to do, people in boardrooms up and down this country are trying to make investment decisions, and they want clarity and certainty. Those decisions will affect jobs and prosperity in this country, so let the Foreign Secretary give us some clarity.

Will the Government, at next week's summit, be pressing for other Governments to declare the treaty dead and bring the ratification process to an end? If not, what will our position be? What will happen to the accession talks during the period of paralysis, and what will be the status of the Bills preparing for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania? More important, will the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that there will be no attempt to introduce any part of this constitution by the back door, and that any further transfer of power away from the British people will result in a referendum? Will he give us an assurance that, following the summit next week, the Prime Minister will come to the House and tell us either that the treaty is dead and the ratification process is over or that we will have a referendum so that the British people can add their voice to the voices of the Dutch and the French in rejecting this dated and dangerous constitution?

Europe is having its "emperor's new clothes" moment, and the voters have seen through the self-serving agenda of Europe's ruling elite. We now need to get on with building a different Europe—a Europe that works with, not against, the instincts of nation states, and in which sovereign countries co-operate where it is in their mutual interests to do so but retain the freedom to act independently when their national interests require it.

Here in the United Kingdom, only a month after the general election, the centrepiece of the Government's foreign policy has been blown apart. This, as the Foreign Secretary pointed out, is the treaty that the Prime Minister has already signed. He negotiated it in our name, and it was at the centre of his last crusade for a continent. But we have had eight years of the Government getting it wrong on Europe. They were wrong on the euro. The Prime Minister said that

"the euro is not just about our economy but our destiny"

—some destiny! They were wrong on the social chapter, wrong to sign away our controls on immigration and asylum and wrong on this constitution. My advice to the Foreign Secretary is, "Have some courage man and declare this constitution dead".

We should all thank the Dutch and the French for their liberation from the constitution negotiated by the Prime Minister. The game is now up for Europe's political elite. The people of Europe must be the masters now.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

May I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy at the beginning of his remarks, and take this opportunity—the first I have had—to congratulate him on his appointment as shadow Foreign Secretary?

I listened with very great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, and much of it seemed simply to be re-running the arguments of the election of six weeks ago, which he lost. The Conservatives made those arguments central to the election campaign in which they were comprehensively defeated. As for investment decisions and jobs, let me just remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government have one of the finest economic records of any Government in the western world and of any Government in British economic history.

Let me deal now with the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. He asks me about our position at next week's summit. We will make judgments about our position at next week's summit—based on the statement that I have made today—much nearer the time. Meanwhile, there will be a meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council—of Foreign Ministers—on Sunday and Monday, and an opportunity for the House further to discuss the matter when we discuss the forthcoming European Council next Wednesday, 15 June.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about accession talks during this period. I am pleased to reassure him that these talks will continue. One of the leaders of one of the countries that has expressed publicly in the past some reservations about the possible accession of Turkey, Chancellor Schüssel of Austria, is himself on record as saying that he wishes the negotiations to continue, and I believe that that will be the case.

The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we are intending to introduce any part of the constitution by the back door. The answer to that is no, we are not, but there is a question here—[Hon. Members: "But."] There is a but. There is a real "but" for serious Members of the House. I understand the points of engagement and of controversy about this constitution. I would have looked forward to that engagement in the country as a whole. However, many parts of the constitution were reforms that were widely agreed in all parts of the House. For example, there were the proposals to give real flesh to the idea of subsidiarity, the proposals to give national Parliaments a new and better say over EU legislation, and the proposals to provide for yellow cards.

If the Commission or the Council were themselves to suggest that we should introduce these things by other means, it would be absurd to put such proposals to a referendum. We ought to agree to them straight away.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

Of course we should. Is it seriously being suggested from the Opposition Front Bench that proposals that happen to be in the constitution but could, I hope, be introduced in any event in a separate way, which would strengthen the role of this national Parliament, must go to a referendum? That is an absurd position, and exposes the vacuity of the Opposition's position.

We are not proposing that this constitutional treaty—the only constitutional treaty before Europe or before this country—should be agreed by this country save by a referendum.

Photo of Robin Cook Robin Cook Labour, Livingston

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on striking the difficult balance of making it clear that the Dutch and French referendums have derailed the constitution without using language that would enable the Dutch and French Governments to blame him for being the obstacle that caused the crash? I believe that my right hon. Friend's statement achieved that balance very well.

This was the fourth major attempt in 15 years to rewrite the treaties. Would we not have had a better chance of getting a yes vote last week if, instead, leaders had focused on delivering the promise of full employment that we gave in Lisbon five years ago? If we really want to reconnect Europe with the peoples, should not the first priority of the forthcoming British presidency be to deliver on that promise rather than attempting a fifth rewriting of the treaties?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I fully share my right hon. Friend's central tenet—that the test of the EU has to be its outcomes and not its process. I would say that we wanted the change of process that is contained within the constitution not for its own sake but so that the outcomes could be better and more quickly implemented. In France, for example—and of course no means no; I am not trying to dissect the no vote—the surveys of "no" voters show that their concerns were as much domestic as they were European. Above all, there are concerns about problems of unemployment in France. There were similar but different concerns inside the Netherlands. Delivering on outcomes has always been our top priority in Europe, as it has been in the UK. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that ensuring a real delivery throughout Europe on Lisbon—on which we, the UK, have delivered—is essential.

Photo of Menzies Campbell Menzies Campbell Shadow Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs)

Does the Foreign Secretary accept now that it is necessary for the Government to put themselves not only at the heart of Europe but at its head as well, and that UK leadership has never been more important, both at home and throughout the EU, than it is at the moment?

If we accept that there is no chance of the French or Dutch Governments seeking fresh endorsement from their citizens, and if we agree, as many of us do, that it would be at best quixotic to ask the British people to endorse a treaty that will not come into force, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity this afternoon to do two things? First, will he reaffirm the Government's belief that issues such as climate change, terrorism, the middle east, Iran and trade with the United States can only be dealt with successfully through a concerted European Union approach? Secondly, will he commit the Government to every available measure to enhance transparency, subsidiarity and access—none of which require treaty changes?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments, which I accept. Of course he is right to say that we are much stronger when we work with our European partners—especially on Iran, but on climate change, Africa, the middle east, terrorism and other issues as well—and weaker when we do not, as we discovered in relation to Iraq.

The principal Opposition party needs to make a choice. Yes, they disagreed with the constitution. However, if we care about the UK's role in the world and our prosperity, it is crucial that we do not use the fact of the rejection of the treaty by France and the Netherlands to undermine the real benefits that the EU as a whole has brought us.

On his second point I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He knows that, separately from the treaty negotiations, I introduced proposals for consideration and decision by this House, the better to enable it and the other place to scrutinise European legislation properly.

Photo of Jimmy Hood Jimmy Hood Chair, European Scrutiny Committee, Chair, European Scrutiny Committee

What surprises me is that some people are surprised by the result of the French referendum. Everyone inside the Elysée palace, including the president's cat, knew that the referendum was heading for the buffers. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that the Convention that produced the draft treaty was a French idea, led by a former French president, which has now been summarily dismissed by the French people? The treaty is dead; let us now put it to rest and, as my right hon. Friend suggests, move on. I hope that next week's Heads of State and Government meeting will do just that. We must not start to discuss things that are now behind us. The treaty has failed and we need to go forward.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

The constitution was generated by the whole Convention, which included a very large number of representatives, including some from this Parliament and the Government. The decisions of the intergovernmental conference were made by the whole IGC and agreed unanimously. It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that responsibility for the constitution lies at the door of any one member state. We are all responsible for it. The Prime Minister and I would not have recommended it to the House unless we thought—as we still do—that it would be beneficial to the United Kingdom. None the less, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Photo of Iain Duncan Smith Iain Duncan Smith Conservative, Chingford and Woodford Green

Listening to the Foreign Secretary is like watching a laboratory rat running from one electric probe to another, shocked and dithering all over the place. Will he answer a simple question? His Government extolled the virtues of the treaty—they said that it was right. Now, he must either come to the Dispatch Box and say that the treaty is dead; or, if it is not dead, he should let the British people have their vote and kill it off.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

Everyone knows the reality after the French and Dutch referendums, but it is not for any one country alone to make a decision on the future of the treaty. That is for the European Council.

Photo of Gisela Stuart Gisela Stuart Labour, Birmingham, Edgbaston

I thank my right hon. Friend for his thoughtful and measured statement. That contrasted with the Opposition spokesman's statement, which was delivered with great passion but had no content whatever. When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues, will he keep two things in mind? First, what the Dutch and French referendums showed is that the old division between the so-called British Eurosceptics and the Franco-German motor no longer exists. The question is which countries and which economies are fit for Europe. Secondly, Ministers should remember not to spend all their time arguing over the rulebook. At some stage they will have to sit down again and write a rulebook. The one thing they need to consider is whether power is exercised at the appropriate level. I agree with my right hon. Friend's call for greater subsidiarity, but at some stage we must revisit the question whether some of the powers currently exercised in one place would not be more appropriately exercised in another, in the interests of economic efficiency.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I thank my hon. Friend too for that thoughtful question. I take note of her first point. She says, and she was a member representing this Parliament on the Convention, that a stage will be reached when the rulebook will have to be revised. I remind the House that it is because the existing rulebook is to be found in four overlapping treaties and was designed for an EU of six initial member states that it had to be revised. At some stage in the future, if the constitution does not go ahead, some of the changes that the Convention and the IGC faced will have to be faced by Europe, if it is to operate effectively and efficiently. But I take my hon. Friend's point about the need for power to be exercised at an appropriate level. There is no doubt about that. The issue of subsidiarity—of decisions being made at the lowest level possible—has been a long-standing concern of the Government and is one that we shall pursue.

Photo of David Heathcoat-Amory David Heathcoat-Amory Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions & Welfare Reform

The European constitution has been consigned to the political dustbin, but the problem remains of a European Union that is wasteful, remote and bureaucratic and lacks popular support. Why did the Foreign Secretary not tackle those problems before he signed the constitution, and will he now apologise for that? Will he transfer his recent enthusiasm for the constitution to searching instead for a simple democratic Europe closer to its citizens, and will he publish his proposals in a White Paper during the British presidency of the European Union?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

The right hon. Gentleman also sat as one of the House's representatives on the Convention and well understands the document. Part of the purpose of the Laeken declaration and of the constitution was to deal with what he describes as the bureaucracy of the EU. That was why, for example, far from the constitution recommending an increase in the number of Commissioners to cope with the increase in the number of member states, it proposed and recommended a decrease. It is also why it proposed a much simplified voting system—one in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, I may say, without any question—in place of the convoluted formula that was agreed at Nice. To re-emphasise the point, it contains tangible proposals to improve the way in which this national Parliament and every other national Parliament could scrutinise EU-proposed draft laws. All those were beneficial, and in my judgment—and this is why no apology arises—would have been better for the UK and better for Europe, and far from leading to more waste would have led to less waste, a streamlined organisation, and what my right hon. Friend Mr. Cook was speaking about—better and more effective outcomes for the citizens of Europe.

Photo of Doug Henderson Doug Henderson Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North

There are many people in this country and throughout Europe who have a fear of competitive nationalism. They remember what happened in the 1930s, when economic and political instability wrecked Europe. I very much welcome the approach that my right hon. Friend announced to the House, and the fact that the British Government will take a measured approach at the Brussels summit. Will my right hon. Friend continue with that approach as we prepare for the British presidency? I look forward to hearing from him next week, when he may give us a greater flavour of some of the proposals that he intends to put forward.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. When we argue about the constitutional treaty—the argument is perfectly understandable—we should be certain not to damage the progress that the EU has made in securing, above all, peace between continental states whose histories are written in blood rather than words and unparalleled prosperity. We should not lose sight of that point in future discussions.

Photo of Ian Paisley Ian Paisley Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those who made the test should stand by it? Those who legislated for the way in which the treaty would have been ratified want to change the law now that events have gone against them. How can the people of Europe believe in politicians who do not live up to their promises? Given that the ballot box has spoken loudly in France and even more loudly in the Netherlands, why are some people in Europe preaching, "We must obey the law. We must obey the test."? They are trying to undermine what they said was everyone else's duty.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I answer for the British Government, not other Governments. In my statement, I spelled out the position on ratification, which is also set out in one of the articles of part IV of the constitution. Each member state must ratify the treaty by their own national procedures. In some cases—nine so far—those national procedures have been parliamentary. In three cases so far—Spain, the Netherlands and France—the national procedures have involved referendums. I have heard a lot of speculation about the future decisions that the European Council might make on the treaty's future, but I have not heard it suggested that Heads of State, Heads of Government or Foreign Ministers are seeking to undermine their own law or EU law.

Photo of Dennis Skinner Dennis Skinner Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that people in the Common Market and, latterly, the European Union have from time to time overreached themselves in trying to sell a package from the top down? For example, they almost went a bridge too far when the then Tory Government signed the Maastricht treaty. I voted against the European Union Bill on Third Reading because, once again, they had stretched the limits. From the moment that Giscard d'Estaing introduced this cock-eyed constitution, I have thought "Perhaps they have gone too far this time." Will the Foreign Secretary tell Chirac and Schröder that we will not go down the road that they are suggesting? Will he send them a copy of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch—it is deceased; it is kaput; it is no more?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I understand that this afternoon's proceedings are being followed quite closely across Europe, but, for greater accuracy, I shall ensure that copies of the full proceedings, including my hon. Friend's remarks, are made available to Heads of State and Foreign Ministers.

In this country, we have strongly supported enlargement on a bipartisan basis. In my judgment, EU enlargement was essential, and it is a further achievement of the EU. Without it, those countries in eastern Europe that were not formerly democracies would not have emerged as quickly or as effectively from the shadow of the Soviet bloc and developed into fully operational democracies with the prospect of prosperity. I repeat that we can argue about the constitutional treaty, but in so doing, we should not damage the fabric of the EU.

Photo of Kenneth Clarke Kenneth Clarke Chair, Tax Law Rewrite Bills (Joint Committee), Chair, Tax Law Rewrite Bills (Joint Committee)

As someone who spoke on Second Reading of the European Union Bill and voted in favour of it, I add my opinion that it is common sense not to reintroduce it to this House or to proceed in any way with ratifying a treaty that is as dead as Mr. Skinner has just described it. At the next Council, during their presidency, will the British Government try to persuade other Governments to forget about rule changes of all kinds for the foreseeable future, to live with the treaties of Nice and others, however unsatisfactory, and to get on with the real business of the Union? In particular, will they give priority to economic reform, to completing the single market in services as well as goods, and to trying to get closer to real co-operation on foreign and security affairs after the recent demonstration of how comparatively weak we all are in the world unless we improve the ways in which we collaborate with our partners in all those areas where we really have interests in common?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

It is the self-evident truth, as I spelled out in the original White Paper on the proposals for the constitutional treaty a year and a half ago, that

"If a new Treaty cannot be agreed, or ratified, then the EU would still carry on under its current arrangements; and it would have the same functions as it has today."

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I have with my right hon. Friend Mr. Cook, that outcomes are crucial and that that is the test by which the European Union will be judged in every member state.

Photo of Frank Field Frank Field Labour, Birkenhead

Although the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from me, said that there would be a vote on the constitution even if other countries defeated it beforehand, may I say that I accept as sensible the position that my right hon. Friend has outlined to the House? However, might I probe him further on the distinction that he made towards the end of his statement and in relation to the Liberal Democrat question—the idea that there is a list of reforms with which everybody agrees and a list of contentious reforms? Would it be possible for him to put a note in the Library of what he believes are the reforms on which we are all agreed and a list of those reforms on which he fears that some of us might take issue with him, so that we can strengthen his position against those who will get this treaty, by hook or by crook, whatever the people of Europe say?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I thank my right hon. Friend for that sedulous invitation; I think that it requires a period of reflection. What I would say to him, again, is this: I know and respect the fact that he had a different emphasis from me about this treaty, but I do not recall him ever, for example, objecting to the proposals to strengthen the role of national Parliaments; his objection was that they did not go far enough.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

A second example, since I am asked, concerns the voting system, which is palpably in our interests and in the interests of anybody who wants a transparent system of democracy.

Let me just make this clear. As I said to the Opposition spokesman, there may be some perfectly sensible changes that we could introduce by other means, but there will be no proposals made by this Government that seek to bring in this constitutional treaty, or elements of it, by the back door. That is clear.

Photo of Nicholas Soames Nicholas Soames Conservative, Mid Sussex

May I remind the Foreign Secretary that my party is wholly and unswervingly in favour of the enlargement of the European Union? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore encourage the Prime Minister to use this moment of reflection to consider those rules that are not subject to treaty amendment and would enable the Union to function more effectively and more efficiently along the lines proposed by my right hon. Friend Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, at the same time as genuinely seeking a leadership role in the European Union when we assume the chairmanship and ensuring that it puts forward a plan for economic growth and for lower unemployment that will command the support of the greater number of the countries of the European Union?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

The simple answer is yes, we are doing that. Indeed, on enlargement, as we flagged up in the Queen's Speech, a Bill will come before this House for ratifying the enlargement to Bulgaria and Romania, and we are not proposing to have a referendum in respect of that Bill.

Photo of Kate Hoey Kate Hoey Labour, Vauxhall

I am sure the Foreign Secretary would agree that among the things that are synonymous with the European Union are back-door and back-room deals. Will he assure me that one matter that he would certainly submit to a referendum is the creation of a Foreign Minister and a European President?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

Those points are central to the European constitutional treaty, and of course I see no prospect of their being brought into force, save through the vehicle of a constitutional treaty.

Photo of Peter Tapsell Peter Tapsell Conservative, Louth and Horncastle

Does the Foreign Secretary understand that much of continental Europe is now very close to the political, monetary and employment disasters predicted in detail by those of us who spoke and voted against the Maastricht treaty in the House? Why, at a time when hedge fund managers are speculating on whether there is any long-term future for the euro as a currency, does he go on saying that it is in the British interest, and even in the interest of the peoples of western Europe, to allow a continuation of the ever-increasing federal follies that we have seen ever since Maastricht?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. Gentleman speaks of certain problems relating to the euro. I did not mention the word "euro" at any point in my statement, and the constitutional treaty is not about that. We have always made it clear that should there come a moment when we judge the economic tests to have been satisfied, there will be a referendum on the euro before the United Kingdom joins.

Photo of Mark Hendrick Mark Hendrick Labour, Preston

May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the tactic of using referendums to defer very difficult and important decisions on Europe is the equivalent of kicking the ball into the long grass? May I put it to him that if Blackburn Rovers adopted the same tactic, they would be playing alongside Preston in the football league rather than in the premiership, and would certainly have no chance of qualifying for Europe?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's point about Lancashire football teams, but I can say this. We have not used referendums very often in this country, but we have used them in respect of constitutional changes. For that reason, we listened carefully to the representations made about a referendum on the constitutional treaty and decided last Easter to recommend such a move to the House. I think that that was sensible, but it does not follow—and I do not think it is the Opposition's policy—that we should have referendums to ratify all EU treaties.

Photo of Angus Robertson Angus Robertson Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Defence), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

I accept that the European constitution is indeed as dead as the Monty Python parrot. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we need to reform European Union policies that undermine Europe? May we perhaps start with the common agricultural policy, which hurts developing countries, and indeed the common fisheries policy, which damages our coastal communities?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I agree with both points, but the British Government have been in the lead in reforming the common agricultural policy, to take one example. We have been able to make the reforms we have made so far only because of qualified majority voting, and because some of the countries that benefit unjustifiably from the CAP have not been able to exercise a veto. So yes, reform of the CAP and the CFP are priorities for this Government.

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

The House should welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that he reserves the right to bring the referendum Bill back to the House if circumstances change. Is it not a fact that Europe has been built on the principle of stopping the clock at five minutes to 12 so that negotiations can continue beyond the deadline? Is my right hon. Friend not entirely right to extol the virtues of the treaty that is on the table now, and will be on the table for many a year to come?

In the context of the point made by my right hon. Friend Mr. Cook, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that during our presidency, beginning on 1 July, we will not be deflected from seeking to enhance and advance the Lisbon agenda entered into in 2000?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I take note of what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his question. Yes is the answer to the second part: achieving outcomes and tangible objectives for the British people as well as for Europe's other citizens is central to our presidency.

Photo of Angela Browning Angela Browning Vice-Chair, Conservative Party

On 13 May, the Prime Minister told the editor of The Sun that even if the French voted no, this country would still have a referendum on the new EU constitutional treaty; he said that that was a Government promise. The French and Dutch national interests have been served; even the Spanish national interest has been served. Is it not incumbent on the Prime Minister and other Ministers who stand at the Dispatch Box to serve the British national interest? Should not they now give the British people the same rights as the French, the Dutch and the Spanish?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I spelled out the Government's position very clearly in my statement. The simple fact is that there is no point in proceeding with the Bill at the moment, because of the uncertainty about the consequences of the clear decisions in France and the Netherlands—[Interruption.]

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

Anyway, there is no point.

Photo of Phyllis Starkey Phyllis Starkey Labour, Milton Keynes South West

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the priority for the European Union must now be to address the underlying concerns of the French and Dutch people, and many others across the European Union, and to come forward with positive, practical ways of dealing with the economic problems in Europe and strengthening Europe's voice internationally to deal with the issues that are important to European citizens? Would not that co-operation be put at risk by the kind of visceral Europhobia that we have heard from those on the Conservative Front Bench?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Photo of Richard Shepherd Richard Shepherd Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills

The British people have not had an opportunity to express an opinion on what was then the Common Market for 30 years. We applaud the fact that France, the Netherlands and even Spain have given expression to their views, but the British Government must understand that the British people may have severe reservations about the institutional architecture of the existing treaties: Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam. These are the issues on which the British people need to express their views, and that is the justification for our having a referendum. We need to express our view on the position at which Europe has arrived.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the British people have not had a chance to vote on EU treaties for 30 years. It was the arguments that he and many others put forward that led us to the view that we should provide for a referendum on this constitutional treaty, and that is what we proposed in the Bill. He cannot have it both ways, however. The constitutional treaty is designed to amend the existing treaties, but as I understand it, the Conservatives are not proposing a total change in the Maastricht and Nice treaties, the Single European Act or the treaty of Rome. If they are, let them come forward with their proposals.

Photo of Ian Davidson Ian Davidson Labour, Glasgow South West

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on making the best of a bad job. As I understand it, he accepts that the treaty is dead, but cannot say so in case he gets the blame. In those circumstances, I accept that there is no need for a referendum at this stage. However, I want to ask him about his little list of issues that he believes would be accepted by all. How does that differ from a "constitution lite", and does it represent an attempt by him to slip through a number of items from the constitution without the promised referendum? Will he also clarify whether he intends, as part of the negotiation process in Europe, to concede the British budget rebate?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I thank my hon. Friend for his compliment, and I take it in the spirit in which it was intended. Let me make it clear that there is no plan, proposal or intention to slip elements of the constitution through by the back door, to pick up my hon. Friend's phrase. I was making the separate and prosaic point that there are some things—to do with strengthening the role of national Parliaments, for example—that could be done separately. I think that even my hon. Friend would find it difficult to argue with those measures, as they are aimed at strengthening the role of national Parliaments, not weakening them.

So far as future financing is concerned, that was discussed two weeks ago by Foreign Ministers, and will be discussed again this coming Sunday and Monday. Our position on future financing and the UK's abatement has been made clear: we believe that the abatement is fully justified, and we will not hesitate to use the veto if necessary.

Photo of David Howarth David Howarth Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to the issue of transparency raised by my right hon. and learned Friend Sir Menzies Campbell? In particular, might his list of non-contentious issues include the proposal in article I-24 of the treaty that the Council of Ministers should meet in public when discussing legislative issues? Would he further accept that that reform can be achieved without a treaty change?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

As far as I recall, those proposals have already been agreed and could come into force at a political level without a need for any treaty change.

Photo of Keith Vaz Keith Vaz Labour, Leicester East

In welcoming the decision by the Foreign Secretary to postpone the referendum, which is only sensible after the outcome of the French and Dutch votes, he will know that in 24 days' time Britain will be in the leadership as far as these issues are concerned. It is worth reminding the House that it is not a question of having or not having a list—Britain's commitment to the reform agenda goes back eight years, and it is set out in part in the letter from Chancellor Schröder and the Prime Minister on how the European Council can be reformed. When we take over the presidency, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the reform agenda will be pursued and that, if there are sensible statements and policies that can be implemented with the agreement of all concerned, they will be implemented.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

Yes, I will do so. I made that point in my statement earlier today.

Photo of Bernard Jenkin Bernard Jenkin Shadow Minister (Energy and Climate Change)

May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that we are listening to a Foreign Secretary and a Government in denial? What he must do to live up to his assurances is demand the sacking of Javier Solana, who is a Foreign Minister in all but name, dismantle the European Defence Agency, which was a central provision of the constitution, and turn back the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, which is implementing the charter of fundamental rights through European Community law. Otherwise, he is co-operating with our European partners in implementing this constitution by stealth, against the wishes of the French and Dutch people who have voted against it.

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I am more than grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has asked me, as he has exposed his overwhelming hostility not to the constitutional treaty but to the institution of the European Union itself. He says that we should sack Javier Solana. Javier Solana, the high representative of the European Union, was appointed not under the constitutional treaty but under the treaty of Maastricht, recommended by the Conservative party when it was in power. The Defence Agency, again, is not in the constitutional treaty, but was established under the existing treaty base of Maastricht. All that he has done is expose his unremitting hostility to the EU, which Labour Members, and apparently many Conservative Members, do not share.

Photo of Jeremy Corbyn Jeremy Corbyn Labour, Islington North

Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that a large number of people voted no in the French referendum because they did not want to see free market, global economics imposed on their country or others in Europe, which would lead to yet higher rates of unemployment and further attacks on the welfare state throughout the continent? Does he accept that if he is to propose any new constitution, it must meet those real, legitimate concerns and promote something called a social Europe rather than a market Europe?

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Foreign Secretary

I am happy to engage in an ideological debate with my hon. Friend about this matter, but I happen to believe that the way that we achieve a social Europe is by harnessing the forces of the market so that they work in people's interests, not against them. I do not happen to believe, however, that a social Europe and social welfare is antithetical to a market economy—it depends how the two are harnessed in the interests of each. As for the reasons why people in France and the Netherlands voted no, they are many and various. In France, however, what is clear is that many people voted no because they believed that we had won too much in the achievement of the constitutional treaty—a point made persistently by Laurent Fabius, one of the leaders of the no campaign.