European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 31B: 31B: Clause 8, page 4, line 8, leave out ““on Royal Assent”” and insert ““six months after the date of Royal Assent, provided that before that date— (a) a report by the Prime Minister has been laid before both Houses of Parliament to clarify the institutional changes in the European Union arising under the Treaty of Lisbon, including in particular— (i) the role and identity of the proposed President of the European Council; (ii) the role and identity of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; (iii) the size, role, budget and objectives of the proposed European External Action Service and its implications for membership of the Security Council of the United Nations by the EU and its member states; (iv) the timetable and method for implementation of any other Treaty provisions agreed to under this Act which had not been decided and published at the time of the signing of the Treaty; (b) a report has been laid before both Houses of Parliament on such discussions as have been taken place at EU Council or other EU meetings in 2008 to clarify the matters referred to under this section, which remained unresolved at the signing of the Treaty; and (c) the reports laid by the Prime Minister under this section have been approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should preface my remarks on what will be the final amendment by saying that I have no career left to ruin, so I do not need to seek any accolades from anyone in these matters. I begin with a formal note, that I am informed by the Clerks that this amendment is not quite correct, in that sub-paragraph (ii), concerning the role of the high representative, is a matter on which the House has already concentrated and voted. That part of the amendment should not be there and is out of order. For that reason I wish to concentrate on the amendment, without any reference to that sub-paragraph. As we are drawing to the end of this stage of the Bill, I wish to comment on the very interesting observations in the previous debate—they lead to the point I am making so I hope they are not too out of order—from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who is a most ebullient and persuasive proponent of a number of views, one of which is that we must all think about how to be better Europeans. I am very willing to go along with that. When he talks of the concern about shared sovereignty, he is not so much wrong, as focusing on a past state of affairs. There are people in all political parties and in the media who use that phrase and who are concerned about the concept of sharing sovereignty. Although in a very narrow legal sense, any nation state can put up the shutters and close down or do what it likes, alas—even that may no longer be possible in this era of liberal intervention—we all know that we are completely inter-dependent; that we have to restrain our own ambitions and aims in the light of others; and that we have to work together in a whole variety of international affairs. In the past half century, this country has been superb in developing an effective role in a number of forums or fora—whatever the plural of that word is—and I hope we shall continue to do so. All right, share sovereignty, participate in inter-dependence, but the question for those who come back again and again to a Eurocentric way of thinking is: with whom? We live in a network world in which Europe is certainly our geographical region. We want to be very good Europeans and work with them intimately within the European Union, from which we will not be withdrawists. What has happened in the past five to 10 years makes one think again. When I hear such speeches, I do not sense that the ““thinking again”” has gone on. Even the Foreign and Commonwealth Office says in its annual report, ““We must look to international institutions to make them more effective””. Mr Miliband has made four new goals, three of which are stratospherically vague but one of which is to make institutions more effective. The document goes on to say that that involves the UN and the EU. But the UN and EU are not the only game in town. The idea that our foreign policy will be conducted entirely through our European partners is not a way forward in promoting our contribution to world stability and peace, overseas development and in protecting our interests. Many other avenues are open. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, is a prominent figure in promoting Commonwealth interests and those of the English speaking world—is that right? Could he talk to us—perhaps not now but on another occasion—about shared independence and sovereignty with the great powers of the Commonwealth, which happens to contain some of the fastest growing and most dynamic countries in rising South-East Asia and East Asia? Are these not areas, too, where we have a foreign policy to develop? Should we not be careful in looking exactly at our own common foreign and security policy regulations with our good neighbours in Europe? The wider area and the wider importance are growing in all our relations: with India, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, the old Commonwealth and the new. Should we not be careful to promote those interests, those shared sovereignties and those degrees of interdependence, rather than living in a world where we feel that the EU is the only game in town?