European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, I would love to answer that question and the noble Lord speaks from authority. I hope that we will not promote yet another wide debate but I will just say that the trade mandate, which is very interesting, important and lies in the hands of the European Union, should be pursued, but the noble Lord must not be deluded by economists or other advisers into thinking that the world’s economic and global system is dominated only by the kind of issues covered by the trade mandate. Investment, capital movements, trade between affiliates, which is not even covered by EU trade agreements, and a vast range of contracts and politico-economic and politico-business arrangements happen well out of the sight of the trade mandate that the noble Lord mentions. A lot goes on in the world which is not covered by that. I beg your Lordships to let me turn to the amendment where my proposition—what we have discussed is related to it—is simply that this is a Bill and a treaty that leaves an enormous number of unanswered questions. It was the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who I think talked about a further agenda. Everyone has talked about treaties ahead and a number of European integrationists in the European capitals are ready to talk about the next treaty and another IGC. So the idea that this is a settled matter is unlikely. I am fully aware that I am treading an ambiguous path in the sense that we have argued that this treaty is self amending—as it is. Some of my noble friends, and others, have argued that that means there will not be any more treaties because this one can expand the powers of the European Union and remove the vetoes of nation states on European Union activity to an almost unlimited degree, barring only the areas of CFSP and so on, where we have debated how far they can get into those areas. Those who talk as thought this treaty and its ratification is somehow the end of matters and that they have all been settled and tidied up—the language that the officialdom of the world loves so much—are on a completely erroneous path. We are dealing with the distribution of power and the argument will go on for ever. There will constantly be new pressures for nation states re-acquiring powers and for things to be done in common in the European region. There will be other pressures to link up and share our sovereignty with other bodies outside the European region. That will go on and those who think that they can tidy it up and tie it down are living in a fool’s paradise because that is not the way it will be. Future Governments, including ours—everyone seems to assume that there will be another Conservative Government although I think we should be a little more cautious—will be facing this relatively fluid situation. The distribution of power will not all be settled. I recall, many years ago in the other place, dealing with budgetary legislation coming forward from the then Labour Government. We had to christen it ““liquid legislation”” because as it came forward, although things were stated on paper, hardly had they been set down than they were constantly being changed—they were evolving all the time. There is a sort of liquid legislation aspect to this Bill as well in a way that I think did not exist in the previous treaty Bills relating to Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam. I believe, incidentally, that some of my colleagues in the House of Commons when encountering current budgetary legislation from the present Government find it takes rather a liquid form in the sense that an announcement one week tends rather frequently to be modified, or amended, the next week. Therefore, a whole series of concerns which have come up in the Committee and Report stages are open-ended. The obvious ones, which we have debated endlessly, are the self-amending nature of the new passerelle provision on top of the existing passerelle provisions. There are ambiguities which have yet to be settled—although I do not know how—on the sharing of competences, given the new list of extended competences. There are the issues under Article 352, which we debated on Monday. It used to be Article 308 but is now Article 352. There are also the so-called ““hidden wiring”” features of the treaty, all of which are to do with matters yet to be settled, although some may be at the shortly forthcoming June EU summit. We are told that a little more may be learnt—and, I hope, communicated to Parliament—about the job specification of the President. We have debated that but we have not voted on it. We have not even had a clear answer on it because the Government are not in a position to give one. It is a matter yet to be settled. Then we have the European External Action Service and the streamlining of diplomatic functions which it is said to involve. We do not know anything about that at all. Apparently, an argument is still raging in Brussels about where it should be, to whom it should report, how it will work and how it will draw on national diplomatic services. We have debated that but we have not reached a final view on what is to happen. Again, we have debated the question of the public prosecutor, but when will the matter be settled? Who is to be appointed and what powers will that person have? A power to define to criminal offences is to go to the EU but the list can be expanded indefinitely. How will that be settled? How will borders be secured? The energy field is an area of maximum vagueness, as it is not clear exactly what powers we are handing over. It is not clear whether the new suggested powers over sharing oil stocks supersede, dovetail with or undermine the powers of the International Energy Agency, which, for a brief time, I once had the honour of chairing. We worked out the original oil-stock system and it has worked pretty well since then, but there are some very vague propositions here about the sharing of oil stocks in the future. As for the formulation of common energy policy, we know the gap between the theory, which is that we all share energy through the gas grid and the electricity grid in Europe, and the practice, which is that the gas does not come through and someone else has negotiated the contracts. Those are very serious matters, particularly because, as a result of neglect of our energy policy, this country is sleepwalking into extreme difficulties over energy supply and energy costs. Those will cost this country dear. These things need to be 10 times clearer as a result of this treaty than is the case at the moment. Those are all treaty areas where there is unfinished business and, to use the American phrase, known unknowns. We do not really know what is round the corner and we need to know a little more, although we can never know it all. I can see that added to my list is the point that we do not know how the European Defence Agency will be set up, although it will be under QMV.