Hague on Europe
Peter Hoskin 3:21pm
William Hague delivered a masterful speech on "The Conservative agenda for Europe", at Policy Exchange today. In short, it's the definitive statement of why Britain deserves a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, although it skips around many of the key questions. I've identified some of the best bits below, but the whole transcript's well worth reading (when, that is, it becomes available on the Tory website).
First, there's an incisive attack on the Government's failure to call a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty:
"It is a puzzle why the most enthusiastic proponents of deeper European integration in this country are a referendum’s fiercest opponents. If this Treaty is such a good thing for Britain, if the new powers it gives the EU and the new institutions it establishes are so vital for our future, why do they not want it to have the firmest possible democratic mandate? If its benefits are so obvious, why do they fear that they would lose the argument in a referendum campaign? In the debates in the Commons we have heard ministers extolling how it will allow the EU to do more to combat crime and promote energy liberalisation and the Single Market. The Conservative Party believes, with good reason, that they are wrong. But nevertheless, if they are confident of their reasons why do they think they cannot convince the British public of their case? And if the Treaty is of such a nature that the British public could not be convinced of its benefits, why do ministers support it?"
And he smartly links the lack of a referendum to the issue of trust in politics and politicians more generally. It's further damage containment post-Conway, and an effort to make the Tories the trustworthy party:
"In fact, the refusal to hold the promised referendum on this Treaty will do the exact opposite of what its opponents hope for. It will not help the Labour Government. Trust in politics is at a low ebb now for all too many reasons but a chief reason is this Government’s persistent failure to do what it says it will do. The failure to keep manifesto promises is an important part of that, as Gordon Brown has acknowledged. Just before he became Prime Minister he said: ‘the manifesto is what we put to the public. We’ve got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate’. By failing to honour his commitment to a referendum he has ensured that those words will come back to haunt him. Trust in his Government’s word has been fatally undermined."
He rightly questions the way the Treaty is being presented and debated:
"...just one day was given to the huge changes and transfers of power in justice and home affairs – six hours to consider in detail the new common asylum and immigration policies and powers on visas, the extension of the European Court of Justice’s full jurisdiction to criminal justice and policing co-operation, new rights to makes laws on the definition and penalties of crimes, on criminal procedure and evidence, new powers on civil justice and new powers for Europol and Eurojust, including the right to initiate investigations and the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor.
All this had just six hours of debate. If these had been domestic measures almost any one of them would have merited a bill in itself. The Government said that there would be line by line scrutiny of the bill, but on that day Parliament had, on a rough estimate, 45 second a line, with the inevitable consequence that it was barely able to examine at all the new common asylum and immigration policies with their concomitant provisions."
And sets out some of the dangers of ratifying the treaty, as well as the benefits of refusing it:
"No student of politics can be in any doubt that, like a child with a new toy, if a political institution is given new roles and powers it will be dead set on using them as soon as possible. So it is all too likely that if this Treaty comes into force we would see European institutions pouring their energy not into the hard grind of making our economies more competitive but in exploring how far and to what ends their new competences in these areas might reach...
...Far from allowing us all to move on to the real issues of substance this Treaty would do the opposite. A ‘no’ vote would not mean that Britain had turned its back on Europe, it would be a vote for a more modern and flexible Europe – not the outdated top-down, one-seize fits all structure but one that takes into account Member States’ differing goals and outlooks. It would create the freedom and space for the EU to move to consider a more up to date agenda.
So not only would it be an opportunity for Europe to think again, put institutional questions to one side and get on with the work our voters want us to focus on. It would make unavoidable the realisation that ever deeper political integration is not something every EU Member State wants. Every test of public opinion shows that the great majority of British people do not want the EU to receive more power. If the British people were able to make that view clear in a referendum it would force even Gordon Brown to think of our European policy not as just a damage limitation exercise but in terms of the need for a strategic British vision for Europe, one that, as Tony Blair’s former economic adviser testified, was lacking from the start of the Constitutional negotiations."
Continuing this out-datedness theme, there's great quote that the Treaty is "more redolent of Delors than Google". It's stirring stuff. When Hague's on the top of his game (as he is here) there are few to match him. But it still doesn't directly answer some of the key questions being asked of the Tories - (should they win the next election) will they offer a referendum? Will they pull out of the Treaty? etc. etc. The longer this uncertainty goes on, the more likely it is that Hague's efforts - however eloquent - may be confused for mere political opportunism.
Previous
Comments
Mike
February 7th, 2008 5:10pmExcellent stuff. What DC needs to do is make an unequivocal statement that the ratification of this constitution, sorry treaty, by parliament is illegitimate as all major political parties had committed to holding a referendum to obtain the approval of the British people to so profound a change to our governance. With the first year of a new elected Conservative government a referendum on the treaty would be held. Ample time will be given for supportes of this constitution such as the Labour Party and the LibDems to support its continued ratification. My Conservative government would oppose it. If the referendum rejects the treaty my Conservative Government would introduce an instrument in parliament to reject this consitutional treaty. At that point we would expect to enter discussion with our European Partners to facilitate this process. Well here's dreaming anyway.....
Chris
February 7th, 2008 5:35pmHague is not a serious politician and this is not a "masterful" speech. It's just the usual Hague stream of smart alec remarks. He is a clown. In the imagination world of much of tory politics he was one of our most successful prime ministers. He wasn't. He was an abject failure as leader and he doesn't belong on any front bench. The sooner the conservative party realises that, the sooner it will start on the road back to electability.
steve
February 7th, 2008 5:49pmI cna't help thinking "be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it" applies here. If/when this particular treaty is ratified, then what? As far as I can see any attempt to repeal it would very quickly turn into a "Europe in or out?" question, as I can't see any way of selectively unpicking it once it is in force. Now the idea of a straightforward in or out referendum, probably sounds like a great idea as we sit round this particular euro-sceptic waterhole, but have you ever wondered what would happen if the British people opted to stay in Europe? My bet is we would very quickly become fully integrated, euro and all. As I say, just be careful what you wish for.
Paul
February 7th, 2008 6:01pmOh Chris. Have you seen this? Would that any member of this woeful,Government could make such a speech Perhaps Gordon Brown in his (or your) dreams http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Cj1b-rp1E
Tom
February 7th, 2008 6:10pmCould the Tory party orgnaise their own national referendum? Set up polling stations around the country, promote it, make sure that it is held to normal standards and publish the results?
Marcus Cotswell
February 7th, 2008 6:40pmJust for the record, Parliament does not have the power to ratify this or any other treaty. That is Crown prerogative, exercised on the Crown's behalf by the Foreign Secretary.
Max Kaye
February 7th, 2008 7:30pmHague's comments on New Labour's attitude to its manifesto promises were summed up today by a Government lawyer: "A manifesto promise is incapable of giving rise to a legally binding contract with the electorate. It is a point which is so obvious that I don't want to labour it."
So much for trusting them ever again.
The Tories should broadcast this high and low at every opportunity.
Fergus Pickering
February 7th, 2008 10:00pmWho is this chris person and why the rudeness? You have to give REASONS for that sort of thing, you know. In the world of grwon-ups I mean.
Mark Solomon
February 7th, 2008 10:01pmBritain is a constitutional monarchy, where sovereignty rests with the Queen-in-Parliament - study constitutional theory and British history as long as you like and NOWHERE do you find referenda fitting into the picture. We have only ever had one and it was a political gimmick introduced to get both parties and the Wilson government off the hook. They are a coward's solution to party and government taking the tough decisions needed. The last thing the Conservatives need to do is say anything at all on the issue of Europe and what they will do if the Treaty is in force when they come to power, because this will be the quickest way to ensure they don't. Learn from the past or you're doomed to repeat it - Europe is dynamite for the Tories and the last thing needed is a damaging split reawakening the memories of why they were unelectable in 1997. The urgent work is to get rid of this incompetent dishonest failure of a government and if saying as little as possible on Europe helps that, then that is the way to go.
adrian drummond
February 7th, 2008 10:09pmWhat hope does the UK have if if there are people like Chris(above) voting? What hope does the UK have with our current PM at the tiller? What hope does the UK have with a media largely in the pockets of NL? What hope does the UK have with professional politicians? What a mess.
Austin Barry
February 8th, 2008 12:31amHague is, I believe, the pre-eminent intellect of the Tory party and the one you'd most like to down a pint with in a Richmond, Yorkshire pub. I suspect that given a second run at the Tory leadership he would romp home: he was simply four or five years before his time.
sebastian
February 8th, 2008 3:44amA manifesto promise may not be legally binding, but it morally is. The Government lawyer has done us a favour in saying what he/she did. It's a ringing declaration of this Government's loss of moral obligation and its swift retreat to mere and rather disturbing, finessed legalities: perhaps like a huddle of discredited Corporate Directors who flee for sanctuary to a thicket of ambiguous lawyerly definitions. What exactly does "dishonesty", "fraud", "malpractice", "deceit", "Treaty", "Referendum", Manifesto Promise", really mean? It's slimy stuff indeed and very few of us are taken in. One of the prominent many who isn't conned, is William Hague. Contrary to some views here, I like and admire the man. He has, moreover, a sense of humour and with it, a sense of proportion. Most definitely one to share a pint and a pickled egg with (half an egg each). He's also a martial artist in his spare time - excellent for self-control, a code of honour, proper modesty and the concentrated use of efficient force when required. These are adaptable attributes perfectly suited to the House of Commons. Much more so, I'd say, than NuLab's slippery, Corporate legal semantics.
Dave B
February 8th, 2008 5:49amThe transcript of the speech is available from the Policy Exchange website.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Events.aspx?id=372
Nicholas Millman
February 8th, 2008 10:46amExcellent comment from sebastian with each pertinent point masterfully conveyed. I also believe the qualities that he mentions, a sense of humour, sense of proportion, self-control, honour, modesty and resolve (concentrated use of efficient force when required) are sadly missing from modern British politics.
Anne Winter
February 8th, 2008 1:24pmThe "Chris person" sounds suspiciously like Chris Sherwood, part of the US Mission to the EU and a longtime EU apologist. Mr Cameron *has* promised a referendum on the Constitution. You can read his bylined piece for The Sun here: http://tinyurl.com/2my6hd (see the last para in particular; no, his promise was not dependent on there being an autumn 2007 election)
Ian C
February 8th, 2008 1:54pmIf Cameron has the sense he will announce an "in with reform of the EU or out" Referendum on a Tory win at the next election. It will prick the Liberal and UKIP bubbles and get us back to two party politics.
Ian H
February 8th, 2008 3:55pmThis whole Referendum episode makes me despair. One of the main reasons the EU is so unpopular in the UK is the infantile behaviour of the pro-EU politicians. Unlike almost every other EU member State, the UK has never had a full, open and adult debate about EU membership. This is largely because the pro-EU politicians refuse to engage in one, preferring instead to shout abuse at anyone who disagrees with them - like Chris, above. There is a very good case to be made, in my view, for the EU and UK membership, but it has never made to the UK electorate. Unfortunately UK membership began with the great Heath lie and has continued in the same way ever since. This has left the field open to the anti-EU lobby, who generally argue their case very well. As long as the pro-EU politicians continue to prefer cynical subterfuge to actually making a case and discussing this important issue with their fellow countrymen, so long will the majority of UK citizens continue to view the EU with suspicion and hostility. I agree that the Tories would do us all a favour by organising their own national debate and reforendum.
Tapestry
February 9th, 2008 2:02pmThe EU says that they will demand a high price from Britain should we withdraw. Hague should call the EU's bluff, and demand to know how much the threatened penalty for British freedom would be.
It would make a great Sun headline if they gave a reply.