European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 4: 4: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— ““Treaty of Lisbon: clarifying arrangements (1) The Prime Minister shall, within no more than six months of the passage of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement, detailing— (a) those elements of the constitutional arrangements in the Treaty of Lisbon that required further negotiation and clarification; (b) any other Articles or elements of the Treaty of Lisbon that required further negotiation and clarification, subsequent to 13th December 2007; (c) what draft proposals he, or any other Minister of the Crown, has agreed with other EU members in relation to matters included in paragraphs (a) and (b) above; (d) what aspects of the arrangements envisaged in the Treaty are still not agreed and remain to be resolved in negotiation within the EU. (2) In preparing such a statement, the Prime Minister shall have particular regard to— (a) the powers and duties of the President of the European Council; (b) the detailed role of the President of the European Council and his relation to the Heads of Government of the nation holding the rotating presidency of the EU; (c) the powers and duties of the EU High Representative; (d) the detailed role of the EU High Representative and his relation to the Secretary of State.”” The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will forgive me if I catch my breath after the last debate. Our concern here is with the issues left over from the treaty negotiations, which still remain to be resolved, and how on earth they should be handled by our Houses of Parliament. We have learnt recently from a presidency document that an immediate range of issues is to be decided, such as the salary and role of the proposed EU president—and we will have many more amendments later on the foreign policy aspects of that matter; on the powers of the new Foreign Minister and his diplomatic service; on how those things fit together with a rotating presidency system; on the development of defence co-operation, which is a crucial matter; on the new powers to be handed to the European Police Force, Europol, and the prosecution service, Eurojust; and many other matters as well. In the words of the Economist, dozens of questions are left unanswered by the treaty and many of them will give rise to fresh debates in future about the whole shape and nature of the Union. A misunderstanding needs to be cleared up in Ministers’ minds about the whole nature of the European process. The EU is not, and never has been, a fixed arrangement with nicely delineated powers about who does what. Relationships are in perpetual flux. There is no single treaty that can settle matters for all time, as some enthusiasts seem to yearn for. One hears people say, ““This will be the final settlement”” and, ““This will be the ultimate solution for Europe””. That is the language of fantasy because that will never happen. I think that that explains why President Sarkozy is already talking about future integration and a working party that he wants to get started about the next stages in the integration and formation of the Europe that he wants to see. Aside from that, the EU project—before it the EC project and before that the EEC project—has always proceeded by informal understandings and quiet arrangements. Some have condemned these as being by stealth; others have said they are simply moving around the political obstacles that would otherwise have stood in the way. Anyone who has read a very interesting book by Keith Middlemas—his brilliant book subtitled The Informal Politics of the European Union—will know that is what has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. That is the way the European system is going forward. We want it to go forward. in ways that are different from the centralisers and the old guard collectivists who still dominate the thinking of many people outside—and many of your Lordships, I fear—and on the left in European politics. Parliament really should know what the new president’s powers are and what his position is. There is to be a new Foreign Affairs Council as well as a General Affairs Council. It is very hard to see how that will work out. Will the new president sit on both councils? Will he chair both? Will he share a chair, which would be rather uncomfortable, with the rotating head of government president every six months? If the General Affairs Council is no longer to look at world affairs, what will the heads of government do when they meet if all the foreign policy and world issues are left to the new Foreign Affairs Council? Who will broker and help to resolve the endless differences between member states on external issues—not on all issues but on a great many—and on the EU’s role in the world, which makes so dangerous the reliance on the EU partners to voice and promote our own interests? These are crucial questions for our own affairs, which we must have clarified. We need proper parliamentary accountability in all this. We want to ensure from the start that Parliament is told and given a proper chance to debate and approve or reject what is likely to happen, and, indeed, what has been already agreed to by the treaties that Parliament has been asked to sign up to. We have tabled amendments as proposed by the Lords Constitution Committee. We agree with its view and it agrees with ours. They would ensure that all the opt-in and opt-out activities, whether under previous treaties—I emphasise that—or under this one, are put to Parliament by the Government for approval. This is the first of a series of proposed changes aimed at maintaining and enhancing parliamentary accountability over what is being done in our name. They do not change the treaty but they control part of its impact, or should do so. Therefore, the Government should, frankly, accept them. Indeed, I have written here ““So should the Liberal Democrats””, to which I just have to add, ““some hope””. I beg to move.