Europe after Maastricht : interim report : report, together with the Proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices : first report [of the] Foreign Affairs Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Foreign Affairs Committee.
Date:
1992
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Europe after Maastricht : interim report : report, together with the Proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices : first report [of the] Foreign Affairs Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    26/96 (page 10)
    [Mr Harris Contd] French Republic, the President of the Commission are not interested in this approach. They have lived through enough, I think, to know that it is a very poor substitute for what is actually on offer which is a Community of 12 going ahead, but whether there are people chattering on these lines in the background, I cannot possibly say. Whether Mr Brock of The Times has picked up some con- versation which leads him in that direction, I sup- pose he probably has. I cannot control what people think if they are thinking along the lines as Mr Wareing has sketched, but clearly there is no plan or proposal. On the contrary, it is clear that all those concerned are anxious that the Treaty should be ratified by 12 countries. Mr Rowlands 34. The Secretary of State has shown there is a healthy debate in all parties, but let me put the converse to that which Mr Wareing put to you in this fashion: what is puzzling me more and more as I have been listening to replies and indeed the whole situation is that we are out of the ERM, we have an opt-out provision regarding EMU any- way, there is great uncertainty whether others will be able to follow it, convergence is going to be even more and more difficult and at least. only achievable with one or two, so why, therefore, at this stage in the proceedings do we have to import into our own domestic legislation article after arti- cle, legislative act after legislative act regarding the EMU, second stage or third stage, into our legisla- tion now? By all means let us discuss it when the time comes and then legislate for it, but why do we have to import it into our legislation now? (Mr Hurd) The deal which was done at Maastricht by the Prime Minister and _ the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to the effect that we would be part of the discussion, part of the negotiation and we would be in there. The corol- lary of that of course is that we do need to incor- porate, we do need to ratify the relevant parts of the Treaty, but, as Mr Rowlands clearly knows and as I hope everyone knows by now, the achievement of the negotiation was that that was done without prejudice to your decision, and our decision as Members of Parliament whether we go to the final and the crucial stage, but it is a corol- lary of the agreement that we do ratify what there is, just as it is a corollary of it that others have to accept that we and, in a slightly different form, the Danes have the opt-out. That second thing is actu- ally rather more difficult for them than it is for us. 35. But ratification is an executive act, not a leg- islative act. It is accepting where we have to legis- late for specific areas. Do we have to legislate at this moment in time for EMU, for Stage II or Stage III, and why can we not do’ that at the time when we make the fundanéental decision of whether we are going to belong to it or not? (Mr Hurd) | think that the answer rests on my earlier answer, that the negotiated agreement is that we should be part of the system. That is to say, we should take a full part in discussing its workings and that we cannot do unless we follow through the procedure in the way that we are doing. I do not think there is an alternative. Chairman: I want to spend the last few minutes of this section of our hearing on looking a bit fur- ther ahead as to what our aims are, as it were, beyond Maastricht, whether that hurdle stands or not, but first I think Mr Gapes and Mr Canavan have some questions. Mr Gapes 36. Foreign Secretary, you at the beginning out- lined the items which are on the agenda at Birmingham and one notable absence from that there is such difficulty getting ratification through which is public concern about unemployment and the general economic problems in Western Europe. Can I ask you is the Government even at this stage prepared to consider pushing that on to the agenda so that something substantive can come out of the meeting? (Mr Hurd) Well, I think it will come out. I think the reflection and analysis I have talked. of will not be confined to the monetary side. I notice what the socialist leaders in Europe meeting in Brussels on Friday have said on that and I am sure that the economic discussion I have mentioned will broaden out. Mr Canavan 37. Just a further point on the timing of the article raised earlier by Mr Harris because it is clearly very important and Jacques Delors is quoted as saying that some countries are looking for alibis for delaying the Treaty, that it may well be that others will take the initiative in the world as it is, that we cannot delay and a senior Commission official is quoted as saying that Kohl and Mitterand have agreed in principle that they would try to go ahead with the version of Maastricht even if Denmark or Britain did not rat- ify. Do you see this as undue pressure on the part of Jacques Delors and his friends on the British Parliament possibly even to try and blackmail us into ratifying Maastricht because the consequences would be dire? (Mr Hurd) No. Jacques Delors has often criti- cised Maastricht as inadequate from his point of view, but he sees it as an agreed basis on which the Community can then proceed. He is anxious to get it ratified. He draws attention in the quotation you gave, as Mr Wareing did, and as indeed I did in my reply, to the risk that if Maastricht collapses other people will try to seek to form combinations of their own. I think the quotation you have used was made before the Prime Minister made his announcement about our own ratification proce- dures. Chairman: Can we look at how Europe will or ought to proceed or how you, Foreign Secretary, think it should proceed when we have got over or