Opening Speech to the House of Commons as Foreign Secretary
House of Commons
November 12th, 2007
Mr Speaker I consider it an enormous privilege to open today’s debate as Foreign Secretary. My purpose is to set out how the Government will engage abroad to help build security and prosperity at home.
Today I laid a wreath and led a service of Remembrance in the Foreign Office to remember those members of our staff who have been killed in the line of duty, including two in the last year. It is therefore appropriate that I recognise the dedication, bravery and skill of Britain’s diplomats, armed forces and aid workers around the world, and I am sure the whole House will join me in doing so.
Mr Speaker, all sides of the House agreed last Wednesday that Pakistan must be close to the centre of our foreign policy concerns. I am sure the House will therefore understand if I start with the crisis in that country.
I will not rehearse the proximate causes of the crisis nor our short term aims and objectives – clarity about free and fair elections, General Musharraf ’s resignation as Head of the Army, restoration of media freedoms and release of political prisoners.
I spoke yesterday, and this morning, to our High Commissioner in Islamabad, and discussed yesterday the situation with Condoleeza Rice. This is the current position.
The commitment of General Musharraf to elections by January 9th is welcome. Less welcome is the lack of clarity on when the State of Emergency will end: current conditions stand in the way of free and fair elections. And there are the mixed signals about the amendment to the Army Act , which allows civilians to be court-martialled, primarily for terrorist charges . The lack of progress on the position of political prisoners, which I discussed with leading human rights campaigner Hina Jalani in London last week is a major concern for all friends of Pakistan. I am sure the whole House will deplore the deportation of 3 British journalists, and continuing restrictions on the media.
Our position is clear: the best interests of Pakistan, its security, its development, are served by a managed transition to democratic rule, with elections that are genuinely free and fair and allow the voice of the moderate majority to be heard.
There is also a Commonwealth dimension. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meets today to discuss Pakistan. HM Queen, HRH Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister and I as well as the SoS/DFID will all attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kampala next week. The focus will be on encouraging good governance and embedding democracy. It is a chance to press forward towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals. It will focus on our shared understanding of the scale and urgency of the climate threat. And of course it will provide a timely opportunity for us to take stock of the situation in Pakistan.
Mr Speaker the crisis in Pakistan raises many of the central questions facing British foreign policy. Today I want to address
• first, democracy-building and the rule of law, especially the situation in Iraq and the MEPP
• second, counter-terrorism, especially the situation in Afghanistan which is a key test for the future of Nato
• and third, nuclear proliferation, especially the position of Iran.
I will then address the important legislation we will consider on the EU.
Mr Speaker, the war in Iraq divided the country. But nearly five years on from the fall of Saddam Hussein, now is the time not for historical reckoning but for practical engagement. Without prejudice to the sincere views on all sides about the original decision to invade, now, following unanimous UNSC Resolutions, following the democratic vote of 11 million Iraqis, we have the chance to unite around the vision of an Iraq proceeding step by step to self government on the basis of better security, stronger economic development, and enhanced political reconciliation.
My RHF the Defence Secretary was in Iraq last week. He will speak for himself later. But our priorities are clear:
• to fulfil our obligations to the people of Basra as we move towards Iraqi security control i n December
• to work with the government in Baghdad to promote an inclusive political system and culture
• to ensure that the terrorism of the PKK is addressed head on in the North of the country, in partnership with the government of Turkey
• to support economic reconstruction across Iraq
• to engage all the neighbours of Iraq, Sunni and Shia, in shared commitment to stability in the country
• and to rally the international community around the globe behind the goals set out in UNSCR 1770.
Mr Speaker, the Middle East needs a stable Iraq but it also needs security for Israel and a viable state for Palestinians. The stakes in the next year could not be higher: the best chance for many years to deliver a two state solution, and the alternative: bloodshed and instability on the basis of failed talks.
I will see and hear for myself the current prospects when I visit the region next weekend. Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbashave been meeting fortnightly; Condoleeza Rice has visited the region seven times this year; Arab states are committed to the Arab Peace Initiative; and the EU Action Plan has united European opinion behind the Annapolis meeting and practical support for its aftermath.
The UK is determined to play its part – politically, economically, and on security, building the constituency for peace to outflank the call of violence. We will help address Israeli security fears through support for Prime Minister Fayyad’s security plan. We will help address Palestinian misery through nearly £32m in aid, including support for schools, clinics and basic services. We will work with all those committed to peaceful means to advance a two state solution.
Mr Speaker, the suffering of the Palestinians is used to support a narrative of terrorism and extremism. But the front line of terrorism in 2001 was Afghanistan, and it is again the front line today.
The situation in Afghanistan is tough and dangerous. But as President Karzai emphasized during his visit here last month, the efforts of UK, other allied and Afghan military and civilian forces are making a difference.
• The fighting in Helmand is very tough but Helmand is not a no-go area; in fact British troops are driving back Taleban forces.
• The Afghan army is not at full strength. But 40,000 Afghan soldiers have been trained and equipped to fight alongside international forces.
• Afghanistan is very poor; but last year the legal economy grew by 8%.
• Afghan health and education services are in some places very basic; but since 2001 the number of functioning health clinics has increased by 60%. Two thousand schools have been built or repaired and 5 million children are at school, over a third of them girls;
• Drug supply in Helmand is rising fast, but 13 provinces are now poppy free.
The next steps are to work with key allies on the big issues: promoting good governance, marginalizing extremists, establishing better coordination on the borders, developing local civil leadership, and of course strengthening security. The Prime Minister will say more on this in This House next month.
The operations in Afghanistan, and also Kosovo, are test cases for the new NATO we want to see. This April Allies will meet in Bucharest to agree means of further transforming NATO to meet the needs of the 21st century, to improve the way it works with other organisations, to integrate civilian and development efforts with military activity, to build more flexible, deployable and sustainable forces. The UK will play a leading part in those debates.
Mr Speaker, the Government will be active in building democracy in the Middle East, active in countering terrorism in Afghanistan, and active in working to counter nuclear proliferation, not least in the debates this month and next on Iran.
Our commitment to diplomacy with Iran is steadfast. Last June, we along with E3 plus 3 partners gave Iran a clear choice: join the international community in limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and reap the economic and technological benefits, including for civilian nuclear power; or promote proliferation, and suffer isolation.
Dr El Baradei and Dr Solana will report on Iran's progress later this month. Unless these reports are positive, the E3 plus 3 Ministers have agreed to seek a vote on a third UN Security Council sanctions resolution. Meanwhile the EU is considering further sanctions. This is the right strategy – we must keep up the pressure.
I repeat my desire to see Iran take its place as a respected member of the international community; but also our determination to defend the NPT.
In all these areas there is an international coalition of which Britain is a leading member. In three countries marked by repression and destruction when they should be marked by development and progress, there is also international consensus that needs to convert pressure into action.
• In Zimbabwe, the suffering of Zimbabweans of all races is the direct result of President Mugabe’s misrule. The next step is the imminent announcement of the conclusion of SADC's mediation role. We will be looking to see how commitments by ZANU(PF) to level the playing field for next year's elections translate into real improvements on the ground. It is only through genuinely free and fair elections and an end to political violence that Zimbabwe will be able to start back on the road to recovery.
• In respect of Darfur, we have a UN resolution for the AU/UN peacekeeping mission, but there are problems translating it into troops on the ground. There are peace talks, but not all parties are engaged . And the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which ended twenty years of war in Southern Sudan is under pressure. We are working with the UN and allies to overcome impediments to action and promote security, political reconciliation and economic development.
• And in Burma, we await this week the report of Ambassador Gambari to the UNSG. ASSK's first statement to the world in four years is encouraging. The release of some prisoners and allowing ASSK to meet her party are welcome developments. But they are only the first steps towards genuine national reconciliation and democratic rule. The UN, EU and Regional tracks are all important in convincing the regime that ASSK’s call for “meaningful and timebound dialogue” are the only basis for the international community to be convinced that they are serious.
I say in all candour that the coalition of international support of which the Government is a leading member is strengthened by all party support in this House. […]
Tonight at the Guildhall the Prime Minister sets out our agenda. On this side of the House we know that our shared planet faces shared problems and needs shared solutions - in the UN, the Commonwealth and the EU.
When we joined the EU in the 1970s there were 6 members. Now there are 27. Europe has changed for the better. It is the biggest single market in the world. It has decent social rights. It sets high environmental standards. It is a force for good on its troubled borders – though Mr Speaker we have difficult decisions ahead on Kosovo and the role for Europe and the Minister for Europe and I would welcome the chance to discuss them properly with this House as we address the conclusions of the troika working group after December 10th. Mr Speaker this is the Parliamentary session in which we can end institutional navel gazing about the EU and take forward the drive for Europe to engage with global problems.
The European Reform Treaty will amend the way Europe works.
The weight of UK votes in the Council of Ministers goes up not down. I can’t believe anyone in this House objects to that.
The Treaty cements enlargement and it paves the way for more enlargement in future, including Turkey. I thought there was cross-party support for that.
It will cut the number of Commissioners. Not just 9 fewer Commissioners. 9 fewer teams of officials supporting them, 9 fewer official cars, 9 fewer expense accounts. Is anyone seriously opposing that?
We move from the 6 monthly merry-go-round of the changing Presidency to a full-time chairman of the European Council, appointed by Heads of Government, accountable to the Heads of Government. Surely that is common sense.
There are also significant things the Treaty does not do. As Giuliano Amato, Deputy President of the European Convention said: “If someone in the UK is calling for a referendum that is not because the text we have in front of us is a Constitution”.
As the German Conservative President of the European Parliament said: “Since making the Charter legally binding and extending the Community competence to JHA were two of the most important features of the original constitution, the deal struck by Tony Blair in June means that – for better or worse – much of its substance will simply not apply in Britain.”
As the Netherlands Council of State reported on 12 September: “The purpose of all these changes is to rid the proposed Reform Treaty as far as possible of the elements from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe which could have formed a basis for the development of the EU into a more explicit state or federation. This means that the proposed Reform Treaty is substantially different from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”.
Let me rehearse what the treaty does not do. First, there is an explicit, legally binding guarantee in the Treaty that the UK’s existing labour and social legislation will be protected. This is what the legally binding protocol to the Treaty says:
“That the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles”
It also says, in a legally binding protocol: “The Charter does not extend the ability of the ECJ…to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or actions of the UK are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.”
It is worth noting that the CBI say in their “Lobby Briefing” that the commitments secured by the Government in this area mean it is time for the EU to move on to the big policy issues. The Opposition should take note. Second, our existing right to opt in to cooperation on visas, asylum and migration is extended in the Treaty to cover cooperation on police and judicial processes. It is a right for the UK to decide what is in our interest, to opt in where we want and not to do so where we don’t.
Third the Treaty makes explicit the independence of our foreign and defence policy. There is a legal lock which says that unanimity will remain the rule for setting the Common Foreign and Security Policy . The Treaty also sets clear and start limits on ECJ jurisdiction and includes, for the first time, a g uarantee that national security is the sole responsibility of the Member States.
Fourth, we have a strengthened veto power on social security.
Fifth, and this was a concern of the FASC and the European Scrutiny Committee, there is no question of the Treaty forcing Parliament to do anything; instead it gives rights to this Parliament.
In each and every area where we promised to secure our red lines they have been secured. In many areas the Treaty constitutes less change than previous Treaties.
• The Single European Act of 1986, with its blueprint to complete the Single Market, provided for cooperation in foreign policy and created the concept of the convergence of economic and monetary policies. No referendum.
• The Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 created Economic and Monetary Union, the Common Foreign and Security Policy and co-operation on Justice and Home Affairs. No referendum.
Similarly the less significant Treaties of Amsterdam in 1997, which streamlined decision making, extended cooperation on immigration, extended the powers of the European Parliament and added provisions on social policy and employment , and the Treaty of Nice, which adjusted the EU's institutions to pave the way for enlargement, reweighting votes to allow decisions to be taken more easily, did not lead to referenda.
We have never held a referendum to approve changes to the functioning of European institutions. Here is why:
“Only in a country with a strong Parliament is there genuine representative democracy; only with a strong Parliament is government genuinely accountable; only with a strong Parliament is political decision making both robust and sensitive; and only with a strong Parliament do the people of that country have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.”
That is not me speaking. That is the RHG speaking in 2000 at the launch of his own Commission on Strengthening Parliament. […]
Mr Speaker, in ten years Britain has gone from the impotence of the Beef Ban in the European Union to leadership on energy and climate change in the EU; from cheapskate pariah in international development to acknowledged leader on international development; from marginal actor in global debates to central player.
Now is not the time for Britain to retreat from the world. In the EU, in the UN, in the Commonwealth, in our relationship with the US, our voice is strong and our message clear. As long as this Government is in office so it will continue to be so.
House of Commons
November 12th, 2007
Mr Speaker I consider it an enormous privilege to open today’s debate as Foreign Secretary. My purpose is to set out how the Government will engage abroad to help build security and prosperity at home.
Today I laid a wreath and led a service of Remembrance in the Foreign Office to remember those members of our staff who have been killed in the line of duty, including two in the last year. It is therefore appropriate that I recognise the dedication, bravery and skill of Britain’s diplomats, armed forces and aid workers around the world, and I am sure the whole House will join me in doing so.
Mr Speaker, all sides of the House agreed last Wednesday that Pakistan must be close to the centre of our foreign policy concerns. I am sure the House will therefore understand if I start with the crisis in that country.
I will not rehearse the proximate causes of the crisis nor our short term aims and objectives – clarity about free and fair elections, General Musharraf ’s resignation as Head of the Army, restoration of media freedoms and release of political prisoners.
I spoke yesterday, and this morning, to our High Commissioner in Islamabad, and discussed yesterday the situation with Condoleeza Rice. This is the current position.
The commitment of General Musharraf to elections by January 9th is welcome. Less welcome is the lack of clarity on when the State of Emergency will end: current conditions stand in the way of free and fair elections. And there are the mixed signals about the amendment to the Army Act , which allows civilians to be court-martialled, primarily for terrorist charges . The lack of progress on the position of political prisoners, which I discussed with leading human rights campaigner Hina Jalani in London last week is a major concern for all friends of Pakistan. I am sure the whole House will deplore the deportation of 3 British journalists, and continuing restrictions on the media.
Our position is clear: the best interests of Pakistan, its security, its development, are served by a managed transition to democratic rule, with elections that are genuinely free and fair and allow the voice of the moderate majority to be heard.
There is also a Commonwealth dimension. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meets today to discuss Pakistan. HM Queen, HRH Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister and I as well as the SoS/DFID will all attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kampala next week. The focus will be on encouraging good governance and embedding democracy. It is a chance to press forward towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals. It will focus on our shared understanding of the scale and urgency of the climate threat. And of course it will provide a timely opportunity for us to take stock of the situation in Pakistan.
Mr Speaker the crisis in Pakistan raises many of the central questions facing British foreign policy. Today I want to address
• first, democracy-building and the rule of law, especially the situation in Iraq and the MEPP
• second, counter-terrorism, especially the situation in Afghanistan which is a key test for the future of Nato
• and third, nuclear proliferation, especially the position of Iran.
I will then address the important legislation we will consider on the EU.
Mr Speaker, the war in Iraq divided the country. But nearly five years on from the fall of Saddam Hussein, now is the time not for historical reckoning but for practical engagement. Without prejudice to the sincere views on all sides about the original decision to invade, now, following unanimous UNSC Resolutions, following the democratic vote of 11 million Iraqis, we have the chance to unite around the vision of an Iraq proceeding step by step to self government on the basis of better security, stronger economic development, and enhanced political reconciliation.
My RHF the Defence Secretary was in Iraq last week. He will speak for himself later. But our priorities are clear:
• to fulfil our obligations to the people of Basra as we move towards Iraqi security control i n December
• to work with the government in Baghdad to promote an inclusive political system and culture
• to ensure that the terrorism of the PKK is addressed head on in the North of the country, in partnership with the government of Turkey
• to support economic reconstruction across Iraq
• to engage all the neighbours of Iraq, Sunni and Shia, in shared commitment to stability in the country
• and to rally the international community around the globe behind the goals set out in UNSCR 1770.
Mr Speaker, the Middle East needs a stable Iraq but it also needs security for Israel and a viable state for Palestinians. The stakes in the next year could not be higher: the best chance for many years to deliver a two state solution, and the alternative: bloodshed and instability on the basis of failed talks.
I will see and hear for myself the current prospects when I visit the region next weekend. Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbashave been meeting fortnightly; Condoleeza Rice has visited the region seven times this year; Arab states are committed to the Arab Peace Initiative; and the EU Action Plan has united European opinion behind the Annapolis meeting and practical support for its aftermath.
The UK is determined to play its part – politically, economically, and on security, building the constituency for peace to outflank the call of violence. We will help address Israeli security fears through support for Prime Minister Fayyad’s security plan. We will help address Palestinian misery through nearly £32m in aid, including support for schools, clinics and basic services. We will work with all those committed to peaceful means to advance a two state solution.
Mr Speaker, the suffering of the Palestinians is used to support a narrative of terrorism and extremism. But the front line of terrorism in 2001 was Afghanistan, and it is again the front line today.
The situation in Afghanistan is tough and dangerous. But as President Karzai emphasized during his visit here last month, the efforts of UK, other allied and Afghan military and civilian forces are making a difference.
• The fighting in Helmand is very tough but Helmand is not a no-go area; in fact British troops are driving back Taleban forces.
• The Afghan army is not at full strength. But 40,000 Afghan soldiers have been trained and equipped to fight alongside international forces.
• Afghanistan is very poor; but last year the legal economy grew by 8%.
• Afghan health and education services are in some places very basic; but since 2001 the number of functioning health clinics has increased by 60%. Two thousand schools have been built or repaired and 5 million children are at school, over a third of them girls;
• Drug supply in Helmand is rising fast, but 13 provinces are now poppy free.
The next steps are to work with key allies on the big issues: promoting good governance, marginalizing extremists, establishing better coordination on the borders, developing local civil leadership, and of course strengthening security. The Prime Minister will say more on this in This House next month.
The operations in Afghanistan, and also Kosovo, are test cases for the new NATO we want to see. This April Allies will meet in Bucharest to agree means of further transforming NATO to meet the needs of the 21st century, to improve the way it works with other organisations, to integrate civilian and development efforts with military activity, to build more flexible, deployable and sustainable forces. The UK will play a leading part in those debates.
Mr Speaker, the Government will be active in building democracy in the Middle East, active in countering terrorism in Afghanistan, and active in working to counter nuclear proliferation, not least in the debates this month and next on Iran.
Our commitment to diplomacy with Iran is steadfast. Last June, we along with E3 plus 3 partners gave Iran a clear choice: join the international community in limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and reap the economic and technological benefits, including for civilian nuclear power; or promote proliferation, and suffer isolation.
Dr El Baradei and Dr Solana will report on Iran's progress later this month. Unless these reports are positive, the E3 plus 3 Ministers have agreed to seek a vote on a third UN Security Council sanctions resolution. Meanwhile the EU is considering further sanctions. This is the right strategy – we must keep up the pressure.
I repeat my desire to see Iran take its place as a respected member of the international community; but also our determination to defend the NPT.
In all these areas there is an international coalition of which Britain is a leading member. In three countries marked by repression and destruction when they should be marked by development and progress, there is also international consensus that needs to convert pressure into action.
• In Zimbabwe, the suffering of Zimbabweans of all races is the direct result of President Mugabe’s misrule. The next step is the imminent announcement of the conclusion of SADC's mediation role. We will be looking to see how commitments by ZANU(PF) to level the playing field for next year's elections translate into real improvements on the ground. It is only through genuinely free and fair elections and an end to political violence that Zimbabwe will be able to start back on the road to recovery.
• In respect of Darfur, we have a UN resolution for the AU/UN peacekeeping mission, but there are problems translating it into troops on the ground. There are peace talks, but not all parties are engaged . And the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which ended twenty years of war in Southern Sudan is under pressure. We are working with the UN and allies to overcome impediments to action and promote security, political reconciliation and economic development.
• And in Burma, we await this week the report of Ambassador Gambari to the UNSG. ASSK's first statement to the world in four years is encouraging. The release of some prisoners and allowing ASSK to meet her party are welcome developments. But they are only the first steps towards genuine national reconciliation and democratic rule. The UN, EU and Regional tracks are all important in convincing the regime that ASSK’s call for “meaningful and timebound dialogue” are the only basis for the international community to be convinced that they are serious.
I say in all candour that the coalition of international support of which the Government is a leading member is strengthened by all party support in this House. […]
Tonight at the Guildhall the Prime Minister sets out our agenda. On this side of the House we know that our shared planet faces shared problems and needs shared solutions - in the UN, the Commonwealth and the EU.
When we joined the EU in the 1970s there were 6 members. Now there are 27. Europe has changed for the better. It is the biggest single market in the world. It has decent social rights. It sets high environmental standards. It is a force for good on its troubled borders – though Mr Speaker we have difficult decisions ahead on Kosovo and the role for Europe and the Minister for Europe and I would welcome the chance to discuss them properly with this House as we address the conclusions of the troika working group after December 10th. Mr Speaker this is the Parliamentary session in which we can end institutional navel gazing about the EU and take forward the drive for Europe to engage with global problems.
The European Reform Treaty will amend the way Europe works.
The weight of UK votes in the Council of Ministers goes up not down. I can’t believe anyone in this House objects to that.
The Treaty cements enlargement and it paves the way for more enlargement in future, including Turkey. I thought there was cross-party support for that.
It will cut the number of Commissioners. Not just 9 fewer Commissioners. 9 fewer teams of officials supporting them, 9 fewer official cars, 9 fewer expense accounts. Is anyone seriously opposing that?
We move from the 6 monthly merry-go-round of the changing Presidency to a full-time chairman of the European Council, appointed by Heads of Government, accountable to the Heads of Government. Surely that is common sense.
There are also significant things the Treaty does not do. As Giuliano Amato, Deputy President of the European Convention said: “If someone in the UK is calling for a referendum that is not because the text we have in front of us is a Constitution”.
As the German Conservative President of the European Parliament said: “Since making the Charter legally binding and extending the Community competence to JHA were two of the most important features of the original constitution, the deal struck by Tony Blair in June means that – for better or worse – much of its substance will simply not apply in Britain.”
As the Netherlands Council of State reported on 12 September: “The purpose of all these changes is to rid the proposed Reform Treaty as far as possible of the elements from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe which could have formed a basis for the development of the EU into a more explicit state or federation. This means that the proposed Reform Treaty is substantially different from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”.
Let me rehearse what the treaty does not do. First, there is an explicit, legally binding guarantee in the Treaty that the UK’s existing labour and social legislation will be protected. This is what the legally binding protocol to the Treaty says:
“That the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles”
It also says, in a legally binding protocol: “The Charter does not extend the ability of the ECJ…to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or actions of the UK are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.”
It is worth noting that the CBI say in their “Lobby Briefing” that the commitments secured by the Government in this area mean it is time for the EU to move on to the big policy issues. The Opposition should take note. Second, our existing right to opt in to cooperation on visas, asylum and migration is extended in the Treaty to cover cooperation on police and judicial processes. It is a right for the UK to decide what is in our interest, to opt in where we want and not to do so where we don’t.
Third the Treaty makes explicit the independence of our foreign and defence policy. There is a legal lock which says that unanimity will remain the rule for setting the Common Foreign and Security Policy . The Treaty also sets clear and start limits on ECJ jurisdiction and includes, for the first time, a g uarantee that national security is the sole responsibility of the Member States.
Fourth, we have a strengthened veto power on social security.
Fifth, and this was a concern of the FASC and the European Scrutiny Committee, there is no question of the Treaty forcing Parliament to do anything; instead it gives rights to this Parliament.
In each and every area where we promised to secure our red lines they have been secured. In many areas the Treaty constitutes less change than previous Treaties.
• The Single European Act of 1986, with its blueprint to complete the Single Market, provided for cooperation in foreign policy and created the concept of the convergence of economic and monetary policies. No referendum.
• The Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 created Economic and Monetary Union, the Common Foreign and Security Policy and co-operation on Justice and Home Affairs. No referendum.
Similarly the less significant Treaties of Amsterdam in 1997, which streamlined decision making, extended cooperation on immigration, extended the powers of the European Parliament and added provisions on social policy and employment , and the Treaty of Nice, which adjusted the EU's institutions to pave the way for enlargement, reweighting votes to allow decisions to be taken more easily, did not lead to referenda.
We have never held a referendum to approve changes to the functioning of European institutions. Here is why:
“Only in a country with a strong Parliament is there genuine representative democracy; only with a strong Parliament is government genuinely accountable; only with a strong Parliament is political decision making both robust and sensitive; and only with a strong Parliament do the people of that country have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.”
That is not me speaking. That is the RHG speaking in 2000 at the launch of his own Commission on Strengthening Parliament. […]
Mr Speaker, in ten years Britain has gone from the impotence of the Beef Ban in the European Union to leadership on energy and climate change in the EU; from cheapskate pariah in international development to acknowledged leader on international development; from marginal actor in global debates to central player.
Now is not the time for Britain to retreat from the world. In the EU, in the UN, in the Commonwealth, in our relationship with the US, our voice is strong and our message clear. As long as this Government is in office so it will continue to be so.
No comments:
Post a Comment