Treaty of Lisbon (No. 5)

That brings me exactly to the points that I wanted to make about the evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is an interesting set of evidence for the House. Professor Hill of Cambridge's centre of international studies told the Committee that"““institutional change has too often been a substitute for change at the level of policy and a willingness to grasp the nettle of difficult decisions…Whenever there is a problem in European Union foreign policy, the instinct is to say, 'Let's invent some new procedure'.””" Professor Whitman of the university of Bath similarly said that"““historically a lot of effort has gone into the procedure rather than the policy.””" He went on to tell the Committee that he thought that "““the CFSP could carry on working quite happily without the changes that are in that treaty.””" A dazzling array of Labour Foreign Secretaries—past and present—drove that point home to the Committee. The noble Lord Owen expressed the view that the EU spent too much time on institutional development and press relations, whereas the best way to strengthen EU foreign policy was"““practical success on the ground.””" The Foreign Secretary's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), dealt briskly with the argument that, as she put it,"““if the European Union cannot get an agreement””—" on the treaty—"““there will be a huge crisis and…the EU will no longer be able to function””." Not so, she said:"““the last few months have shown that that is not actually so. The EU is functioning and has, indeed, reached some quite far-reaching decisions””." I rather agree with those Labour Foreign Secretaries and academic experts that the concentration of EU and foreign policy should be on practical agreement and grasping difficult issues rather than trying to change the rules.