Davey on the European Union

• [Jul 21] Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): ' . . An example that I often use is the directive on strawberries. Anti-Europeans say that it shows how mad the EU is to pass a law on strawberries, but before that there was a British law on strawberries, a Danish law on strawberries . . There were 15 or 27 laws on strawberries . . '

I congratulate Daniel Kawczynski on securing this debate. Although at times the debate so far suggests that hon. Members may be a little bit demob happy, he made some interesting points that I agree with. I strongly agree that Britain should be in the EU. He may be surprised to know that, as Liberal Democrat spokesman on foreign affairs, I believe that the EU should be reformed. I would enjoy a debate with the hon. Gentleman on all the different reforms that we might have. He may be interested to know that I believe that some powers could potentially return, but that would have to be done in renegotiations with our partners. I will come back to that point in a second. I also agree that one problem is that we in this country have gold-plated EU legislation when directives come down to Whitehall. We are our own worst enemy when it comes to many aspects of how European Union law works.

It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to try to explain why there is so much European law. Parties such as UKIP-I know that the hon. Gentleman opposes its position-try to suggest that Europe is taking over law-making. That is simply not true when one analyses not the numbers but the type of law. One reason why Europe has passed so many directives recently is that it deals with trade issues in the internal market-the single market. Anyone who is familiar with the history of law development, whether in the European Union, Britain, the United States or any other developed market economy knows that there are more laws, particularly detailed regulations, covering trade and economic issues than almost any other area. It is not surprising in a single market that more laws have been passed at European Union level. That does not mean that Europe is highly regulated-on the contrary.

An example that I often use is the directive on strawberries. Anti-Europeans say that it shows how mad the European Union is to pass a law on strawberries, but before that there was a British law on strawberries, a Danish law on strawberries and a French law on strawberries. There were 15 or 27 laws on strawberries-on what constitutes a strawberry, and what can be sold by strawberry growers or retailers. Those laws have been stripped away, and there is one law, so that strawberry growers of Kent and elsewhere do not have to have different punnets of strawberries going to Belgium, Holland and France. They can have the same punnets, which is helpful to trade.

European laws have inevitably been numerous because they have dealt with trade, but they have also been deregulatory because there has been a bonfire of member states' laws. That vital fact is rarely stated, and I am grateful to Mr. Evans for providing the opportunity for me to air that argument.

In raising the matter today, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham inevitably focused our attention on the Conservative party's policy on the European Union and what it might be if the Conservatives ever came to power. He and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked about their support for a post-ratification referendum if the Lisbon treaty is ratified before that event, and I look forward to the comments of Mr. Francois. I am sure that he will make clear the Conservative party's position, so I will not put words into his mouth. I am interested to know whether he will talk about its strategy to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the European Union, and how it has been building influence in Europe in recent weeks to make that more possible.

When framing foreign policy, a Government must consider their relationship with Europe's capitals-Berlin, Rome, Madrid-and particularly with Washington. If the Conservative party believes that it will have more influence in the White House because it has less influence in Berlin, Paris, Madrid and Rome, it must be stark, staring bonkers. The major stake to the heart of the Conservatives' attitude to their whole foreign policy is their inability to put forward a coherent, consistent and credible policy with key Conservative European Governments and parties. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c226WH)

Mark Francois (Shadow Minister for Europe, Foreign Affairs; Rayleigh, Conservative): How would the hon. Gentleman characterise the Liberal Democrats' relationship with Washington? (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c227WH)

• Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): It is extremely good. If the hon. Gentleman had joined me at the Democratic convention in Denver he would have seen that there were more Liberal Democrat MPs there than Conservative and Labour MPs put together.

I turn to business's view of the Conservative party's position on leaving the European People's party. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c227WH)

Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): In a moment. British Chambers of Commerce is alarmed and said in the Financial Times on 24 June that "having so many UK MEPs outside the mainstream groupings is a worry for business." Its head of European representation said that time will tell whether the new alliance will prove successful, but at the moment it looks somewhat fragile. I shall talk about fragility in a moment. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c227WH)

Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Conservative): During my speech, I tried not to say anything derogatory about the Liberal Democrats, but the hon. Gentleman has started to criticise the Conservative party. I want to raise two issues. First, why did his party vote against giving the British people a referendum? His party's support for the Government prevented the British people from having that referendum. Not many people realise that. Secondly, why did so few people-only 15 %-vote for his party in the European Union elections? (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c228WH)

• Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Gentleman should be careful about the latter point. He knows that all the major parties saw their vote fall from what was predicted in the polls. On the referendum, he should know-I believe that he attended many of the debates on the Lisbon treaty-that the Liberal Democrats supported a referendum on whether we should be in or out of the European Union, and we had an exchange on that. Our reason was that that was closest to our 2005 manifesto commitment. The constitutional treaty, unlike what members of the Conservative party often say, is not the same as the Lisbon treaty on key constitutional issues.

The constitutional treaty contained the Maastricht treaty, the treaty of Amsterdam, the treaty of Nice, the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act in one document. To vote on that is to vote on the whole European Union. The Lisbon treaty is minor. It is an amending treaty, not a constitutional treaty. It is not about whether one agrees with the whole of the European Union's rules as built up over decades; the constitutional treaty, however, was. A referendum on being in or out of the EU was far closer to our pledge.

Goebbels was right in saying that propaganda is repeating the same lie-[Interruption.] Misrepresentation -I was talking about the Conservative party, not individuals. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c228WH)

Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman will know that when the former President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, gave a speech to the Council of Europe he said that the document was virtually the same as the one the French, Dutch and Irish rejected. Indeed, the vast majority of European politicians rather like the Lisbon treaty, and when they talk about it in their own countries they reassure people that it is virtually the same document. Only in the United Kingdom do we carry on with the pretence that somehow the document before us is different. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c228WH)

Eric Martlew (Carlisle, Labour): Order. Interventions should be short. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c228WH)

• Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to our debates on the Lisbon treaty, because many people had a completely different view. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c228WH)

Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury & Atcham, Conservative): The realpolitik at the time was that the Labour Government would never allow a referendum on whether we should be members of the European Union. By not voting with us, the hon. Gentleman's party lost a golden opportunity to give the British people a referendum on the constitution. Surely he knew at the time that the Government would never allow such a referendum. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c228WH)

• Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Gentleman should have backed our call. We would then have had a much stronger case, and the Government would have been on a much weaker wicket.

The key issue-I am sure the hon. Member for Rayleigh will address it-is the Conservative party's decision to leave the European People's party in the European Parliament. Elected Conservative Members of Parliament and those in Brussels have described that as "stupid", moving the Conservatives to the "wild fringes", "crazy" and "head-banging", the final description being that of Mr. Clarke.

Let us be clear. A vast majority of respected Conservatives believe that the party's current position is crazy. Why did it occur in the first place? The European Parliament does not have the power to change EU treaties, nor can it or MEPs make the EU more federalist. That can be done only by negotiation, subject to the unanimity laws, between member states. Why it was so difficult for British Conservatives to sit on the same benches as the MEPs of Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy is beyond me, particularly as Chancellor Merkel's views are probably the closest of any German leader since the second world war to those of the modern British Conservative party.

The situation is even more bizarre because the European People's party, after quite a big victory for centre-right parties across the European Union, is at its strongest in the European Parliament, and it is at this moment that the British Conservatives decided to leave, so they have chosen isolationism over influence. That will hobble a future Conservative Government.

Any grouping in the European Parliament must have 25 MEPs from seven member states. Following the decision of the Finnish MEP who had been recruited to leave the new grouping after a few days, having met his erstwhile colleagues, the new grouping has only seven member states represented and four of those seven have only one MEP. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c229WH)

Mark Francois (Shadow Minister for Europe, Foreign Affairs; Rayleigh, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman is incorrect: there are eight. (HC Deb, 21 July 2009, c229WH)

• Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): Oh, there are eight-it changes day by day. We can never quite tell. One day, we have former leaders of the Conservative group, people such as Edward McMillan-Scott, who are members of the Tory party, and then we do not. We have to keep track of it, and I apologise for not being quite as up to date as I needed to be, but the key point remains that four members of the new group have a single MEP. It only needs two of them to leave and then the group folds, so the instability-the fragility that the member of the British Chambers of Commerce referred to in the Financial Times last month-is still there. That cannot be a sensible way of going on.

The Conservatives told us that the new grouping would mean a big voice for the British Conservatives, so what have they gained since the elections? They still have only one chair of a committee. That is all that they had in the past. They have not gained any new chairs; their voice has not got any bigger. However, they have reduced voting strength on all the committees, so their voice cannot be heard when they are voting on legislation. Even the leader of their group, who was to be a Conservative MEP, has had to become a Polish MEP. The influence of the Conservative MEPs has been reduced.

I would have liked to go on about all the different members of the new grouping and their particular policy preferences, but I will not, because of time. They have already been rehearsed and I would like to give the Minister a chance to rehearse them, as I am sure he would like to do. I shall therefore end on an issue of policy that is relevant to how Britain is involved with the European Union, and to future issues that will challenge the next Government on both foreign policy and expenditure; we all know the expenditure problems. The issue relates to defence.

I refer hon. Members not to Liberal Democrat policy, but to an article by Sir Malcolm Rifkind in the Financial Times last week entitled "Britain must work with Europeans on defence." In the article, the former Conservative Foreign Secretary talks about the importance of European colleagues working together far more effectively on issues such as defence procurement, and in terms of ensuring that commonality is achieved in equipment, weaponry, armour and so on. He talks about the huge savings that could be reaped. He also talks about making our own Army far more effective. He talks about it being able to work more closely with other armies, particularly that of France, which does take its defence policy seriously, but also with others as, it is hoped, they begin to do so as well.

That ought to go to the heart of political debate-the security and the finance of our nation. We have to work with our European colleagues, and with rather more enthusiasm and with some semblance of influence. I think that the British Conservatives are about to sell our country down the river.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament