European Council: 14 December 2007

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. What a marathon task it was. I assure the House that I will not take as long. Does the noble Baroness accept that last weekend’s ““shall we, shan’t we”” treaty signing was perhaps the most humiliating public event experienced by this country since we have been in the European Union? Anyone who knows anything about Parliament and government knows that the dates of summits and Liaison Committee meetings are discussed months in advance. The Liaison Committee in another place is not so discourteous or so blind to Britain’s interests that it would not have agreed to a new date. The idea that a diary clash prevented the Prime Minister joining in the signing ceremony is preposterous. I do not want the noble Baroness to repeat excuses no one believes; it is more important that we understand the reasons. Why on earth did he do this? Who advises him? Did he consult the noble Baroness? Whatever your approach to the treaty, the shameful spectacle of foreign leaders sniggering while Her Majesty’s Foreign Secretary sidled up alone to sign the document was humiliating, and the spectacle of our Prime Minister signing at a desk alone, like a naughty schoolboy kept in detention, was embarrassing. What was the point of it all? The snub alienated our partners in Europe without fooling anyone. Perhaps he hoped Mr Murdoch would not notice. After this farce, let no one on the government Front Bench ever again raise their finger and point at anyone in this House and say that they would leave Britain isolated in Europe. The image of the Prime Minister sitting alone will haunt us for years to come. The noble Baroness may try one riposte to these criticisms. She could say, ““Ah, but you wouldn’t have signed the treaty at all””. If she said that, she would be quite right; we would not have signed. We would not have supported the loss of the veto in so many areas, we would not have pushed for further institutional integration and we would not have signed anything without holding to the undertaking we gave—we all gave—to holding a referendum. But had we reached an agreement as the Government did, no other party leader would have staged the Lisbon farce that we saw last weekend. On the substance of the summit, we are reassured that the new reflection group is said explicitly not to be able to discuss institutional matters. But is it not disappointing that it is equally not permitted to consider current EU policies? Where does that leave, for instance, the Lisbon process? The communiqué says that it is ““delivering””. That is a bit of old new Labour-speak for you. Where is it delivering? How many EU directives and regulations have been scrapped since the Lisbon process began, and how many have been introduced? I wonder if the noble Baroness could tell us. There is much in the conclusions about migration. There is talk of a common asylum policy within two years, common rules on the return of illegal immigrants, and so on. In light of the Government’s failures in this area over the past 10 years, will the noble Baroness assure the House that nothing here will be allowed to delay overdue action by this Government to contain immigration and deport illegal entrants? There is talk of a mobility agreement with Moldova. What, if anything, was agreed about the atrocious sex-trafficking from Moldova and some other east European nations? On Kosovo, the situation is extremely perilous. What assurances were received from EU countries about assisting with security in that region—or, indeed, in Afghanistan under a UN or NATO ambit? As the noble Baroness will know, there are in Kosovo some of the greatest treasures in the form of medieval wall paintings in Orthodox monasteries. In light of past cultural depredations by all parties in the Balkan conflicts, what steps are being taken to safeguard and secure not only minorities but also their spiritual and cultural inheritance? On Iran, Europe agrees that the nuclear weapon should be kept beyond Iranian hands. So what progress was made in persuading other EU countries that new export credits should be banned and access to the EU financial system restricted? Is the noble Baroness certain that the EU has the legal power to take action against Iran? I turn to Zimbabwe and the daily deteriorating situation of horror there. Two weeks ago, the Government sent the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to the EU-Africa Summit to represent our country. What a pity there was no Statement to this House by the noble Baroness. She could so easily have intervened in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on conflict in Africa last Thursday. I wonder if anyone thought to encourage her—or, indeed, even discourage her—from doing so. Was anything agreed at the EU-Africa Summit to discomfit Mr Mugabe? If so, why was it not mentioned in the conclusions of last weekend’s summit? Why was it left to my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom to raise it today in Question Time? Is the noble Baroness aware that patience in the House is wearing very thin at the line that this brutal tyranny is something that only Africa can deal with? Whatever happened to an ethical foreign policy? Finally, I return to the question of the referendum. The conclusions of the summit talk of, "““better reaching out to citizens and addressing their expectations and needs””." The Prime Minister has talked, although it seems a long time ago now, of restoring trust in politics. How can we do either of these things if two parties—the Government and the Liberal Democrats—flagrantly dishonour their promises to the British people to hold a referendum on this treaty? The Prime Minister’s confidence in this treaty’s acceptability and his willingness to proclaim its merits by taking them to the British people were on display in the hole-in-the-corner charade in Lisbon. The Liberal Democrats have joined him, skulking in that very same corner. If this treaty is so good, then, as Mr Blair once said, let us have the national debate: ““Let battle be joined””. As 240 of the 242 propositions in the rejected constitution are in the new treaty, and as most of the red lines were in the previous document on which we were offered a referendum, just what is the difference now? Why ““yes”” then and ““no”” now? The noble Baroness has bravely taken leadership in this House on Europe, so she knows the answers to these questions. So can she tell the House unequivocally what elements that were in the constitution are not in the new treaty? Will she spell them out? What is the difference between the two? Every other European leader admits that they are substantially the same, so why cannot she do so this afternoon? Does she not see that there will be no trust in this Government unless they fulfil that central promise which they gave at the last general election? After the farce of Lisbon, there will be no authority for this Government in Europe unless our Prime Minister can show, before ever the treaty comes to be ratified, that he is a strong leader whose actions carry the full-hearted consent of the British people? Great harm was done to the image of our country last weekend. Only honesty, courage and the keeping of promises can repair it.