At Prime Minister’s Questions today Charles Kennedy called for a ‘formal moratorium on significant treaty revision,’ so the European Union can concentrate on accomplishing effectively the tasks it already has under existing treaties.
He said that, ‘given the rejection of the treaty in the two referendums in France and Holland, surely we have to accept that this Constitutional Treaty is no longer viable.’
Mr Kennedy argued that ‘there are a number of significant reforms which can be begun here and now without significant treaty revision.’
As an example of such a reform Mr Kennedy asked whether the Prime Minister supported opening up the Council of Ministers to the public ‘so instead of meeting behind closed doors making European law, we can actually see what discussions are taking place.’
Full text of Prime Minister’s Questions follows.
Charles Kennedy: Mr Speaker, returning to the European issue obviously and given the exchanges that have just taken place, I think it would be only fair minded to pay tribute to the Rt Honourable learned gentleman, the Leader of the Conservative party for the principled stand he took over the endorsement of the Maastricht Treaty and we remember that in this house. And therefore we wonder what it is we’re listening to today, it has to be said.
Given Mr Speaker the rejection of the treaty in the two referendums in France and Holland, surely we do have to accept that this Constitutional Treaty is no longer viable.
That being the case, does the Prime Minister agree that what we actually need is not just his pause for reflection but a formal moratorium now on significant treaty revisions, so that the European Union can demonstrate to the citizens of Europe under its existing responsibilities it can carry out the tasks it needs to do.
Prime Minister: First of all, the future of the Constitution in the end can only be pronounced upon by the European Council as a whole which is why we have been careful in the words we have chosen I think for those sensible reasons. Immediately after the referendum results there were people calling for us to simply proceed regardless, I think some reality has now dawned and that isn’t going to happen but I think that the way we approached it was the right way, which is not to try and usurp for ourselves the decision that has got to be taken by the European Council.
In respect of treaty revision well, I think the most important thing as I say over the next few months is to have a serious debate about the economic and security policies for Europe in the early twenty-first century, I hope we can play a part in our presidency in those debates. There will at some point in time though, I do say this to him, be a need to change the mechanisms whereby Europe makes it’s decisions because those mechanisms are not capable in my judgement of delivering effective European decision making given that we now have 25 members, it will increase to 27 and then further.
Charles Kennedy: Mr Speaker, would the Prime Minister accept, I’m sure he does that the key challenge is to bring Europe closer to the citizens of Europe, but there are a number of significant reforms which can be begun here and now without significant treaty revision.
For example, will he over the course of the next few days be arguing the case for the opening up of the deliberations of the Council of Ministers so instead of meeting behind closed doors making European law, we can actually see what discussions are taking place in exactly the same way as we do in this house. And in terms of this house and its procedures, has he given consideration to the all party recommendations which have come from the modernisation committee about the scrutiny of European conduct here so we have better accountability from our Ministers when they go to the Council.
Prime Minister: Well, we do certainly support better scrutiny of European proposals here in this house, and I know my right honourable friend will bring forward some proposals on that in due course. In respect of the Council meetings, we are broadly sympathetic to that, and that is a proposal that we got included in the constitution.
I have to say, to be absolutely blunt about it, I think although opening up the deliberations of the Council to public view is obviously a democratic step forward, it’s not going to in the end answer the real questions in Europe. The real questions in Europe are going, and you can see this very clearly with the referendum results, there is a debate going on in Europe about two things. The first is the right response to globalisation, and the rise of countries like China and India with low labour costs and production who are going to compete on a very very tough basis with Europe and the rest of the world, that’s one attitude towards globalisation that we need to decide and we’re in favour of a free and liberal approach to that, we believe that we should welcome the competition and invest in skills and education in order to meet it. Others believe that we should try and protect ourselves through regulation, I don’t think that’s the right way to go.
The second debate is about the trans-Atlantic alliance. Is our main alliance still with America? Again there’s a debate about that. I think that if we start to answer these debates and forge a consensus on the political direction of Europe, then some of these other issues become easier to manage. But until we do that, then Europe will be uncertain in its political direction and then I think that people will find it difficult to vote for constitutional treaties or things that are important for the political class in Europe but don’t necessarily answer the queries of the people.
ENDS
Return to June Prime Minister's Questions.
Return to Prime Minister's Questions.