Treaty of Lisbon (No. 4)

The word is ““undistorted””, not ““unfettered””, and I am coming to the political signals sent out by the treaty on the role of competition in shaping the EU. After 50 years with a clause enshrined at the front of the treaty relating to ““undistorted competition””, we still do not have anything like it. What kind of signal is the Secretary of State sending by relegating that provision to a protocol? [Interruption.] Well, the term used is ““competition without distortion””. The signals that are being sent are deliberate and strong, and they strike at the heart of the cause of free and open markets and thus at the interests of the United Kingdom. The high-profile removal of the reference in the draft constitution to"““an internal market in which competition is free and undistorted””" was the first blow. The replacement of the existing treaty wording, setting as an objective for the EU the promotion of"““a high degree of competitiveness””" by the new objective stating that the EU shall work for "““a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress””," was a second, representing a significant dilution of the free market agenda. The controversial concept of a ““social market economy”” makes its way into an EU treaty for the first time. We are seeing the elimination of competition as an end in itself. The relegation of any reference to"““a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted””," found in article 3 of the existing treaty, to a protocol is a third blow. The revised Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives exclusive competence to the EU for"““establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of an internal market””." The EU itself will be left to judge how much competition is necessary to achieve the objective of"““a highly competitive social market economy aiming at full employment and social progress””." That is a recipe for conflict, fudge and fiddle, if ever there was one. The Government argued vigorously against exclusive competence, but again they were defeated. By these steps, an unambiguous political signal has been sent: the aim of competition per se is relegated, and competition as an idea is subordinated to other objectives of the Union. That is a clear and humiliating defeat for the Anglo-Saxon liberal approach to the marketplace that Governments of both persuasions in this country have advanced for a political generation.