European Affairs

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on a splendid speech, and I agree with every word that he said. Unusually, I shall strike a note of optimism about the future in my speech, because the tectonic plates have started to shift. We have moved away from a sort of theological Europeanism—apart perhaps from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—towards a more pragmatic tone. There is still a big gulf between those who take a critical position, such as me, and Ministers, but the tone is more pragmatic. Indeed, the Minister for Europe was praising the pick and mix approach to the European Union, in which Britain has been a leader, as we have opted out of several areas and taken a more critical stance than others. I am proud to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. We visit other member countries, speak to people there, and our approach influences them. They are surprised to find that we are a robust group of individuals with different views. We put our views trenchantly and strongly, and if something—such as the common agricultural policy—is total nonsense, we say so. That approach is engendering a more pragmatic approach to European matters. Another reason for optimism is the events of the past couple of weeks. We were fearful that we would have a powerful President of Europe, with a powerful Foreign Minister, and that we would move rapidly towards the supranational European state—a country called Europe—to which the theological Europeans so look forward. But that has changed. The leaders of the European nations, especially Sarkozy and Merkel, have asked themselves whether they really want a European Union with a President who would be the first person whom President Obama would call when he wanted to speak to the Europeans. They would rather that he telephoned them. Angela Merkel in particular wants President Obama to call her first, not the President of the European Union. That is one of the reasons why they have promoted that very nice man, Mr. Van Rompuy from Belgium—I am gradually getting used to his name, although it has been a struggle—and Cathy Ashton. She is a very fine woman and I have met her on a couple of occasions, but she is clearly not the forceful Foreign Minister that people had imagined. There is cause for optimism, therefore, a pragmatism and a move away from the idea of a supernatural European state—I mean supranational, although theologians might want the former. People emphasise to me that there will be no more constitutional change—certainly not towards federalism or a European superstate. The time has come for those who take a critical position to say, "Let's see if we can row back and repatriate some of the powers that have been given to the European Union, particularly in some of the most nonsensical areas, such as the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy." I welcome what I see as a change of direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, welcomed the downgrading of the European President merely to a committee chairman. That is fine by me. I would like to see a lot of downgrading, including of the European Commission. It should be opened up and made much more transparent. Let us have it all in public. Why not? They can discuss things in public. Alternatively, we could have proper ministerial control, like we have here, with a civil service that does what it is told by Ministers, rather than the other way around. The European Commission, however, has powers to tell Ministers and politicians what to do. We have seen a drawing back. On a recent visit to a member state, we were told that the French and Dutch referendums, which were lost, were a wake-up call to the Eurofanatics and theological Europeans, some of whom have now drawn back. The pressure to move towards a superstate has been undermined. For example, let us consider the struggles over the Lisbon treaty, which only just got through—it squeaked through in the end with a referendum and the Czech President having his arm twisted so hard that he finally agreed to sign. But it was a close-run thing. I believe that the future direction of travel will involve a rowing back rather than a move towards a superstate. I want to talk in particular about economics, because the European Union is more about economics than anything else. It has been an attempt to impose a neo-liberal economic model across the European Union in one single European entity. That clearly has not happened. Several major states, including Britain, have chosen not to join the euro, and it is unlikely—I hope—that we will ever join.