Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 5:01 pm on 20 January 2009.
On a day like this, with Barack Obama about to make his inaugural speech as we engage in this debate, we must bear in mind the scale of the problem that my hon. Friend Mr. Hammond identified clearly. In the context of this financial crisis, do we want more Europe, or less? I believe that the US wants us to have more Europe, and I have disagreed with that view—and with prominent members of my party on it—for a very long time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right to argue in the context of the City, for example, that it was essential for us to have our own rule-based system. I accept that we might need to share information and attempt to co-operate with EU member states and other countries around the world, but there is a difference between doing that and subjecting ourselves to the rigidities of a legal framework that is not in the interests of our economy or the City of London.
I turn now to the economic recovery plan. As Kelvin Hopkins noted, Europe as a whole is in recession at the moment. There is negative growth in Britain and in Ireland, which is in desperate straits, while Spain, France, Italy and Germany all face serious economic problems. For three decades and more, promises have been made about where the European economy would go as a result of the EU's plans. I remember reading the Cecchini report in the 1980s, which set out all the promises and forecasts about how the euro would operate. All of them have been shattered; as I said in an intervention earlier, it is like witnessing the carnage of the Somme to see rules laid down as the paragons of virtue for Europe's economy lying shattered in the dreadful crisis that we are debating today.
In fairness to the Minister, he said that there were differences between the UK and other countries. We know that Germany is deeply worried about how Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, is trying to push for more integration. He is doing that, of course, because France is so dependent on Germany, but the Germans themselves have a real problem.
The documents talk about the need to continue with the stability and growth pact. I remember arguing with my right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Clarke in November 1996 when, in a previous incarnation as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he advocated the pact. Now it is in pieces, and my right hon. Friend Mr. Redwood was right to say that its rules have been stretched to a point that renders them completely untenable. The Treasury has admitted that the United Kingdom's GDP deficit could well be 8 per cent., a figure which I know the Minister will confirm. On the figures that I suggested on
If we take into account genuine financial obligations including public sector pensions and so on, we see that the figures are truly horrendous. I therefore strongly urge that we note the fact that the state aid rules are being stretched and that a change in the over-regulation inflicted on our businesses can be achieved only by applying the rule of the supremacy of Parliament, an amendment on which the Conservative party supported me during the passage of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, both in the Commons and the Lords. That requires the judiciary to endorse the decisions taken in this House and not at the European level, otherwise we will not get the repeal necessary to reduce the burdens on British business.
The Lisbon agenda does not work either, as Will Hutton indicated when he was a rapporteur in respect of the agenda. On every scale and on every item included in the economic recovery plan, there is no doubt that either the rules have been broken or the established policy does not work, all of which the Minister implicitly admitted by showing that we, like other countries, were having to go down different routes. Because the—
One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (
Annotations
Bernard Keeffe
Posted on 21 Jan 2009 1:16 pm (Report this annotation)
I am astonished that no honorable member condemns the iniquitous imposition of 12% interest on the Preference shares taken by the government for its capital boost. No bank can lend at 4 or 5% if it has to pay 12% for its capital. This is in alarming contrast to the USA where,on the advice of Warren Buffet the US Treasury charges only 5% - in his words 'so as not to harm the banks' profitability.' but this is precisely what the UK government has done.
This imbalance between Wall St and The City of London could be extremely harmful, especially since the City has been the major source of national income.
A further disappointment is that not a single commentator has written or spoken about this disastrous policy, which is the main cause of the present suspension of bank lending.
But again I say - does anyone actually read what I have written? Os it this another anodyne addition to bread and circuses?