Treaty of Lisbon (No. 4)

A protocol does have the same legal status as the rest of the treaty. My point is that in pursuing the purposive interpretation tradition, the ECJ will look at the purposes and objectives of the Union, as set out in the preamble and the leading clauses of the treaty. I do not believe that the Secretary of State, who I believe is a lawyer by training, finds that concept as difficult as he is making out. Time will tell. We will see how the ECJ interprets decisions in the future in the light of the changes in the treaty. I hope that the Secretary of State will have the good grace, in due course, to come back to the House and accept that there was rather more to the changes in the treaty than the cosmetic effects that he has sought to set out today. The Commission has based its attack on illegal state aid on article 3, paragraph 1(g), read in conjunction with article 10 of the EU treaty. The Court has held that provision elsewhere in the treaty must be interpreted by reference to the purposes expressed in article 3, concluding that public subsidies, whether or not they are apparently sanctioned elsewhere, are illegal if they distort competition, because that is the objective set out in article 3. There is a concern that the ECJ may find it difficult even to maintain the current position on state aid set out in existing case law, because it is all built on article 3, paragraph 1(g), of the treaty as it stands. That was clearly in Sarkozy's mind when he said that the final form of the treaty"““may also give a different legal direction to the Commission. That of a competition that is there to support the emergence of European champions, to carry out a true industrial policy””." Some member states—no names, no pack drill—that fought for these changes have made no secret of the fact that they will seek to use them to expand the scope for legal state aid on social and social market grounds, to permit mergers on industrial policy grounds and to resist pressures for market liberalisation, particularly in energy and network services. I bet that there are people on the Government Benches who would welcome all those things. It remains to be seen how precisely the changes to the treaty in the area of competition policy will be interpreted and used in practice by the Court, the Commission, the European Parliament and the member states. However, I can say this with some degree of certainty: the Government's suggestion that nothing has changed is dangerously complacent and out of line with expert opinion and with the views of most of our European partners. Let me quote Sarkozy again:"““We have obtained a major reorientation of the objectives of the Union. Competition is no longer an objective of the Union or an end in itself…The word protection is no longer taboo.””" The Government have allowed themselves to be outmanoeuvred, outwitted and out-negotiated. After 50 years, the pursuit of a single, open competitive market has been relegated to the back burner and subordinated to the other objectives of the Union. The one undisputed success of the EU is now at risk, and with it the Union's already dubious place in the sentiments of the British people. At a time when Europe needs to become more competitive, more liberalised and more open to the world, it is set to become less competitive, more inward-looking and more protectionist. To their enduring shame, the Government have acquiesced in that process, knowing that it was wrong and that it was neither in Britain's interest nor in Europe's interest. The Government's policy in respect of the treaty and its impact on the single market is not merely incompetent and complacent, it is contemptible and duplicitous. I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment.