European Union Reform Treaty
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1053, in the name of Linda Fabiani, on the European Union reform treaty.
It is clear to the Government that the United Kingdom Government should, as we state in our motion, hold a referendum on the European Union reform treaty. There are weaknesses in its drafting that demand that, but the most immediate and powerful point is that the Labour Party promised in its manifesto for the 2005 UK general election to hold a referendum on the issue. The Scottish National Party welcomed that commitment to allow the people of Scotland a direct democratic voice on the matter. That should still be the case, so we call on the UK Government to meet its responsibilities and honour that commitment by holding a UK-wide referendum.
One could argue at great length about whether the reform treaty is inherently the same as the constitutional treaty. The reality is simple: there are differences between the two, but there are also enormous similarities. There would be little difference in what would result from either for member states and for the European Union, so if we were committed to holding a referendum on one, we must remain committed to holding a referendum on the other.
For this Government, a referendum on the reform treaty is logical and appropriate. I believe that many people in Scotland and the United Kingdom take a similar view. I also suspect that they feel that the UK Government's change of position is based merely on certain technical changes in the drafting of the treaty, that they consider it to be pedantic and mean-spirited, and that they feel that the UK Government is acting with a degree of contempt for public opinion.
Does the minister agree that the reason for the change of heart on the part of the UK Government is that it knows that if it held a referendum it would lose?
I am not convinced about that because we are not a Eurosceptic party—indeed, the Scottish National Party forms a pro-European Scottish Government. However, it disappoints us that by denying people a proper public debate on a key issue, the UK Government is once again playing into the hands of those whose ambition is to wreck the European Union. That gives the European process a bad name and makes it appear that there is something that people should fear when there is not. We would much prefer people to think that the EU is a worthwhile project, in which they are involved. People should feel that they have specific and concrete involvement in the EU's future.
I accept that it is much better to advance the positive side of the EU. If we had a referendum, what exactly would we advance as being the positive effects of the EU as it is developing?
That is for another debate, which I have no time to go into.
We believe in an independent Scotland. I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would have at its core active and positive membership of the EU. The case for independence is greatly enhanced by the new opportunities that would be open to us as a member state of the EU. Scotland would retain all the advantages that we currently enjoy under UK membership. We would have free access to the world's largest market—a single market that brings together half a billion people and more than 20 million businesses across 27 member states. An independent Scotland would be able further to enhance its economic position and its sources of competitive advantage in the vast European market, which is married with admirable levels of social and environmental protection.
Given the massive potential of our people, an independent Scotland would be well placed to succeed in Europe. We have established strengths in financial services, food and drink and tourism and, with its fair share of oil and gas resources, Scotland would immediately rise from being Europe's 10th richest economy per capita to being the third richest. That is the Government's vision of a positive Scotland in a positive Europe, which we will strive to protect, enhance and make real.
Will the minister give way?
No.
Being positive about Europe does not mean that we have to agree to every EU development. It is responsible to question and, if appropriate, to disagree.
I will consider the treaty's development. The European Council of December 2001 decided that fundamental reforms of the EU decision-making process were required. The convention on the future of Europe was established, with the aim of allowing a range of opinion on the new draft constitution. In a relatively rare moment in the history of European integration, the people of France and the Netherlands gave their political leaders a reality check when they voiced their opinions directly, through referenda. Our people are similarly entitled to voice their opinions.
The German presidency broke the deadlock that followed the referenda with an outline agreement at the European Council in June this year. It handed the task of finalising the details to an intergovernmental conference under the Portuguese presidency. The task was completed for agreement of a final text at the October European Council. Heads of member state Governments assembled in Lisbon on 13 December to sign the treaty. Prime Minister Gordon Brown arrived to sign on behalf of the UK later—I assume that he wanted to sign as surreptitiously as possible, but sign he did. The treaty has finally been agreed and signed even by Gordon Brown, who had previously called for a referendum. The 27 member states must now carry out their processes of ratification. Only Ireland is certain to have a referendum, but we will continue to press for one in the UK: SNP members at Westminster will actively press for a referendum as the UK ratification process continues.
On the substance of the treaty, many provisions are helpful and positive. For example, the treaty provides for a mechanism whereby parliaments of member states will have the opportunity to be consulted on possible new proposals for legislation, in relation to subsidiarity. The treaty also for the first time gives parliaments a direct role in the EU decision-making process. Connecting to citizens through parliaments is an important step in ensuring the EU's continued credibility.
Of course, the Scottish Parliament is not a parliament of an EU member state, although the Government's ambition is that it should become one. Until that point, we must ensure that this Parliament plays a full and effective role in working with the Westminster Parliament to discharge its responsibilities.
General areas of improvement include the enhanced role of the European Parliament in decision making, which we welcome as a step towards improved democratic accountability of the EU. I have great respect for Scotland's members of the European Parliament from all four parties. In working tirelessly for Scotland's interests, they listen to the views of many individuals and organisations and often collaborate well across party lines. Enhancing their role is a further positive and pro-democratic step.
However, there are negative aspects of the treaty—an area of continuing concern is fisheries. For the past few days, Richard Lochhead has worked flat out in Brussels, trying to get the most effective deal for Scotland's fishing industry. He did so in full knowledge of the limitations of Scotland not being a member state and, of course, of the absurdity of aspects of the current common fisheries policy. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Scottish Government cannot accept the European Union's claim of exclusive competence over
"the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy",
as the treaty now states explicitly and for the first time. I said that in a previous debate on the subject in the chamber.
Of course, the Scottish Government is not alone in its concerns on the treaty. Michael Connarty, the highly respected chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, has highlighted a number of issues of concern. His cross-party committee published a significant report in advance of the signing of the treaty, in which members expressed significant concern on issues that the UK Government appears not to have recognised.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, thank you.
The issues of concern were not least that the intergovernmental conference process for drafting and agreeing the treaty went a long way towards further marginalising the role of national Parliaments and curtailing public debate. Again, damage is being done to democracy. Whatever one's view of the committee report is, it is very disappointing that the UK Government merely went ahead and signed the treaty without appearing to refute most of the concerns. It also now appears that the Government is set on going ahead with ratification without the full public debate that a referendum would entail.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I have no time.
With a referendum, we could engage constructively with citizens in the European Union; without one, we run the risk of further alienating citizens and confirming the view of many that the EU is run by a self-serving political elite.
In the past, the Labour Party appeared to believe in the value of engaging citizens on the issue; indeed, it made a commitment to hold a referendum on an earlier draft of the treaty. The fundamental importance of the treaty and the lack of changes to most of its key provisions mean that there should also be no change in whether to hold a referendum. For all those reasons, the Scottish Government firmly believes that the UK Government should honour its commitment to hold a UK referendum on the reform treaty. In our motion, we state that clearly and simply.
I commend the motion to the chamber. A referendum is the only democratic way in which to proceed.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the UK Government should hold a referendum on the EU reform treaty.
It is with great pleasure that I debate the EU reform treaty, now known as the Lisbon treaty, for the third time in three months in Government debating time. That said, I find it extremely odd that, although the Government has found time for us to repeat the arguments on the treaty not once, but twice, it has not found time for a single health debate.
We know what the debate is all about: once again, the SNP and the Tories have come together in an unholy alliance for opportunistic political reasons. In this case, they have come together to demand a referendum—one that the chairman of the Conservative party's commission for democracy said would be "crackpot", "dotty" and "frankly absurd".
We have seen the alliance at work so many times over the past eight months that it is fair to describe it as Parliament's auld alliance. Never has it been more ridiculous or incongruous than it is today. On one hand, we have the Tories, with their exaggerated and distorting denunciation of everything to do with the treaty and, on the other hand, we have the First Minister praising enthusiastically the totality of the treaty, with the sole exception of a single line.
For once, Alex Salmond is worth quoting. In a lecture last week, he said:
"The proposed Treaty will bring many benefits … a more efficient decision making process, greater openness and democratic accountability and a stronger sense of direction."
He could have been quoting from the Labour amendment.
The First Minister went on:
"importantly for Scotland, it will advance the principle of subsidiarity and the role of national Parliaments in the legislative process. We welcome these and many other reforms".
I could not have put it better myself.
Does the member welcome the proposal for a foreign minister to represent all of Europe, who will be able to initiate policy and sign treaties on behalf of Europe?
It is untrue for Margo MacDonald to say that the high representative for foreign affairs will be able to initiate policy—all that that person will do is implement the EU's agreed policy, and that has to be on the basis of unanimity. I am afraid that that is one of the many scare stories, which I did not expect to hear from Margo MacDonald.
To return to Alex Salmond, why such sensible remarks on the treaty as a whole should be combined with a totally disproportionate and wrong-headed response to a single line about marine biological resources is one of the great unsolved mysteries of recent debates on Europe in Parliament. The Government has never explained that in any detail, either in Parliament—today or in other debates—in the European and External Relations Committee, or in response to specific written requests from that committee. Everyone except the SNP seems to be absolutely clear that the conservation of marine biological resources has been an exclusive EU competence for decades. I could quote many statements to that effect, but perhaps it is best to go back to the UK accession treaty of 1972, which was negotiated by the Conservative Government of the time and which states:
"From the sixth year after Accession at the latest, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine conditions for fishing with a view to ensuring protection of the fishing grounds and conservation of the biological resources of the sea."
Will the member give way?
I will not just now, because I am way behind time.
The matter is absolutely clear and the European Court of Justice has spelled out the matter for anyone who doubts it. There is treaty change in the move to co-decision making, with new powers for the European Parliament to influence the broad guidelines of fisheries policy. I would have expected the SNP to welcome that as a step forward, rather than to imagine that the exclusive competence line is a step backward. We can speculate on motives, but it would be helpful to get some answers for a change.
I have some points to make about the common fisheries policy but, because speeches must be shorter than was envisaged, I will move to Linda Fabiani's central point, which was about a referendum. She had the gall to contrast the UK Government's alleged change of position with the SNP's "logical and appropriate" view. Let us see how the SNP's view has changed in the past three months. The first I read about the matter was from a senior SNP source in The Herald newspaper on 7 September, who said:
"The party is not sure whether it wants a referendum, and if there is one, it is not sure which way it would campaign."
That perhaps explains why there was no mention of a referendum by the Scottish Government in the debate on the treaty on 19 September.
Will the member give way?
I have no time. I am already having to miss out bits of my speech.
In a debate on 8 November, Linda Fabiani connected the issue of a referendum with change to the marine biological resources line. She said that the SNP would demand a referendum,
"Unless or until it is changed".—[Official Report, 8 November 2007; c 3283.]
By 26 November, the policy had evolved yet again. In a letter to the European and External Relations Committee, Linda Fabiani wrote:
"It is our opinion that, in view of the … identity of effect between the Constitutional Treaty of 2004 and the current Reform Treaty, the UK Government ought to fulfil its own manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the Treaty."
"Identity of effect" had never been mentioned before, but political opportunism had triumphed once again and the ground was prepared for today's unholy alliance.
There is, of course, no "identity of effect". The fact is that the treaty does not embody a far-reaching European constitution, but is a traditional amending treaty that is extremely modest in comparison with the changes that were negotiated by the last Conservative Government through the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act.
Will the member give way?
I am having to miss out bits of my speech: clearly, I cannot take interventions.
Basically, the Lisbon treaty introduces pragmatic evolutionary changes that will streamline decision making, improve efficiency and increase democratic accountability through providing an enhanced role for the parliaments of member states. We will hear quotes today about how 90 per cent of the treaty is the same as the original proposed constitution, but the fact is that the other 10 per cent makes an enormous difference. The measures that have been dropped in that 10 per cent are precisely the most controversial points that gave rise to calls for a referendum in the first place. As someone said, mice and human beings are 90 per cent identical, but the 10 per cent makes one heck of a difference.
Of course, several European politicians who are most upset about the changes will strive to emphasise the parts that have not changed, but many Europeans have given a more accurate and balanced assessment. For example, the Italian interior minister Giuliano Amato, has reflected on the substantial differences between the constitutional treaty and the reform treaty.
As another example, the Dutch Council of State—a group of independent legal experts—has made it clear that there are real and substantial differences between the original constitutional treaty and the reform treaty. The New Federalist magazine has expressed its profound disappointment. It states:
"The result, full of compromises, opt-out opportunities and special texts for certain countries is not going to give rise to a treaty that wins any federalist awards. Indeed, the result is extremely disappointing for anyone who had been campaigning for a Constitution for Europe, and in particular for a Constitutional Treaty."
As that quotation makes clear, the treaty is a defeat for the integrationists and provides a way for an enlarged union of nation states to work together for mutual benefit. The mandate for the intergovernmental conference also made it clear that
"The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them with a single text called ‘Constitution', is abandoned."
It is therefore not surprising that not one country in the EU proposes to hold a referendum, with the exception of Ireland, which is constitutionally bound to have one.
The UK has never ratified an international treaty of any kind by a referendum. There were certainly no greater opponents of doing so than the previous Conservative Government. In 1992, John Major stated:
"The Government do not intend to hold a referendum on the outcome of the Maastricht negotiations. … we are a parliamentary democracy and I see no need for a referendum."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 November 1991; Vol 199, c 415.]
The truth is that there were many Eurosceptics in the Tory party then, but John Major was prepared to take them on. The Eurosceptics have now taken over the Conservative party. As Ken Clarke put it, they would have
"demanded a referendum just about the date on the top of the piece of paper".
As our amendment makes clear, we recognise the enormous advantages that membership of the European Union has brought to Scotland and the UK more generally. We also recognise, in the exciting next phase of the EU, what further advantages it can bring to the rest of the world. I was particularly pleased by the amendment to article 174, which refers to
"promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change."
I was also pleased that it was agreed last week at the European Council that a key part of the EU's external agenda is how, by working together, we can maximise our influence in tackling global poverty. To that end, the Commission will report on how the EU is meeting its commitments to the 2015 millennium goals and how progress can be accelerated.
The contrast in today's debate is between, on one hand, an amendment that is both positive about Europe and realistic about the treaty and, on the other hand, an opportunistic motion that is unable to say anything explicit about either Europe or the treaty, but which is implicitly negative and misleading for supposed political advantage. I see no sign that the people of Scotland are clamouring for a referendum on the issue. I believe that they are much more positive and realistic about Europe than those who lodged the motion presume.
I move amendment S3M-1053.1, to leave out from "the UK Government" to end and insert:
"membership of the European Union has been hugely positive for Scotland and Britain, delivering more jobs, a single market, freedom to work and live abroad, environmental protection, security and an enhanced place for Scotland and Britain in the world; believes that the European Union needs to become more efficient, more effective and more accountable and welcomes the signing of the European Reform Treaty as a significant step towards tackling these concerns, and believes that the treaty will allow the European Union to move on from debates about institutions to concentrating on the fundamental challenges of climate change, globalisation, terrorism and international development."
What we are debating today is more important than any Scottish take on the European reform treaty, important though that may be. We are considering a matter of honour—the honour of Gordon Brown's UK Government. No one needs to be reminded of the annus horribilis that 2007 has been for Labour. It lost control of the Scottish Parliament in May, it lost its bottle in deciding against a general election in October and it lost any reputation for integrity that it may have had over party donations. It now seems that Gordon Brown is prepared to shed the last vestiges of honour by going back on his predecessor's binding undertaking to allow the British people a referendum on the constitutional treaty. That is clearly a betrayal—there is no other word for it.
A Government cannot get away with making a promise under one Prime Minister and reneging on it under another. All parties are guilty of floating ideas when in opposition that they choose not to implement, but few Governments are brazen enough to make a categorical statement of intent, such as that which was made by Tony Blair on having a referendum on the constitutional treaty, only to witness the disgraceful U-turn by his successor in failing to carry out that promise.
I am among those who had considerable respect for Gordon Brown. I do not know him well, but in a previous existence I worked alongside him as a broadcaster. His forebears and mine come from the east neuk of Fife and his grandfather, like mine, was a farm labourer. I do not share his politics, forged as they were on Clydeside, where his father was a minister during the post-war years, but I have always believed Gordon Brown to be a man of principle. Frankly, reneging on Labour's referendum commitment is not the act of a man of principle. For all the protestations about its being a different treaty, Gordon Brown and principled members opposite, such as Malcolm Chisholm and Irene Oldfather, know as well as I do that it is the constitutional treaty in all but name.
Angela Merkel has the guts to say it. Bertie Ahern has the guts to say it. Michael Connarty, Labour chairman of the European Scrutiny Select Committee has the guts to say it. Even Giscard D'Estaing, the architect of the treaty, says that the reform treaty differs only in its wrapping paper from the constitutional treaty. Gordon Brown himself knows that it is the same treaty—he just did not have the guts to be photographed signing the wretched thing last week. Instead, he skulked into the room some hours late to add his name to the other 26. No wonder Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party said:
"Whether you are pro or anti-European, the British performance in there was cringe-makingly awful."
As it happens, I am pro-European, but I oppose the treaty. I respect Malcolm Chisholm's views but agree with only one line in his amendment, which is where he says that
"the European Union needs to become more efficient, more effective and more accountable".
I do not agree with him that membership of the EU has been hugely positive for Scotland—just ask the farmers and fishermen how positive membership of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy has been. On that, I must mention that I believe that there has been another wholly unsatisfactory outcome from last night's negotiations on fisheries in Brussels.
Ominously, the reform treaty will also set up a common energy policy, just when it is absolutely essential that the UK should act independently in looking after its own national energy needs.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will in a minute, if I have time.
Has Labour learned nothing from the CAP and the CFP? It now wants to sign us up for the CEP, while Gordon Brown tries to perpetuate the myth that the treaty is simply a tidying-up exercise.
Does the member agree that the EU would find it difficult to operate if every time any member country decided that it did not want to be part of one policy or another—whether the CAP or the CFP—it withdrew from that particular arrangement? The whole project would fall apart. That is not sensible politics.
That is a totally different argument to the one that we are having today, which is about whether we should have a referendum on the reform treaty.
Last week's weird behaviour shows that even Gordon Brown does not believe it. What makes it worse is that the treaty, even in draft, has not been presented to the House of Commons and that no amendments to the text are allowed in the ratification process. The Prime Minister has signed up for the words, warts and all. It is take it or leave it. Take it or leave it to a new president, who will be in power for up to five years and who will be elected not by us but by the 27 Prime Ministers who make up the European Council. It will be take it or leave it to the EU's foreign minister—the so-called high representative—who will have his own diplomatic corps and worldwide embassies and be empowered by the EU to make any kind of international treaty in our name. It is take it or leave it to the new Cabinet status of the European Council, whose members will be placed under an obligation to put the objectives of the EU above those of their own countries. It will be take it or leave it to the extension of the powers of the unelected Brussels Government to dictate laws and policies that override the wishes of elected national parliaments, along with the national vetoes that have been abolished in 60 new areas.
As for the so-called red lines—our vaunted opt-outs, which Gordon Brown says have been secured for Britain—even Labour's Gisela Stuart, who helped to write the constitution, says that the red lines are actually red herrings. They do not apply to several of the major provisions of the treaty. Now the Prime Minister tells us to trust him, but any future amendments to the treaty will have to come before the House of Commons. My response is to ask how we are expected to trust any promise a Labour Prime Minister gives after the great referendum betrayal. The truth is that today's debate is not really about the new European superstate. As I said to Robin Harper, it is about a matter of honour. If, in the ratification debate to come at Westminster, the right honourable Gordon Brown continues to dishonour his Government's promise of a referendum, 2008 could be an annus even more horribilis than 2007 was for Labour. This afternoon, we in the northern part of the UK have an opportunity to send the Prime Minister a sharp reminder of the betrayal that he is about to perpetrate. The Conservatives will support the SNP motion.
Dear, oh dear. We are having a bit of a strange debate. As Malcolm Chisholm said, it is our third debate on Europe in as many months, yet we are still waiting for a clear statement from this minority Government on where it stands on Europe. The motion calls for a referendum on the EU reform treaty, but does not give one single reason why such a referendum should be held. It would have been more honest of the movers to have stated their case in the motion. It would have been more honest of the movers to have indicated in their motion just what parts of the reform treaty they object to. It would have been more honest of the movers to have indicated in their motion which way they would vote in such a referendum—they have not even done so in their speeches. It would have been more honest of the movers to have indicated the implications of the result of the referendum for Scotland.
The SNP's principal objection is to the EU having exclusive competence on marine biological resources. However, the European Court of Justice ruled in 1979 that
"power to adopt measures relating to the conservation of the resources of the sea has belonged ‘fully and definitively' to the community".
For the benefit of Mr Russell, that is the definitive interpretation of the legislation. Whether or not the EU reform treaty is ratified, the EU will still have exclusive competence over marine biological resources. Given those facts, where does the SNP stand?
Will Iain Smith explain to me why the treaty entrenches
"the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy"
as an exclusive competence but treats all other aspects of fisheries as a shared competence, as it does with agriculture? The entrenchment is the issue. That is an entrenchment action.
For the avoidance of doubt, there is no change to the existing legislation, which has been in force since article 102 of the 1972 Act Concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments of the Treaties. That is what the act said and that is how the European Court of Justice interpreted it in its definitive ruling. That was a red herring.
There will be no herring if we let it happen.
Bruce Crawford said in the September debate that the SNP is
"profoundly opposed to the inclusion of … marine biological resources under the CFP as an exclusive competence of the union."—[Official Report, 19 September 2007; c 1883.]
If the SNP does not agree with it, does not that imply that it must withdraw from the EU?
No.
How can the SNP support membership of the EU and, at the same, time be profoundly opposed to a key part of the EU treaties?
Easily.
Is its profound opposition—as we are obviously hearing now—nothing more that a bit of spin? Is it a pretence that it is doing something for the fishing industry but really does not care much and will stay in the club whatever? Given that its primary profound opposition to the EU reform treaty is nothing more than window dressing, will the SNP—and, indeed, the Conservatives—tell Parliament what are their real objections to the sensible and proportionate reforms to the EU in the treaty?
Would Iain Smith concede that what the UK Government was doing prior to the 2005 election was no more than window dressing?
Yes. I am not answerable for the UK Government and have no intention of answering for it.
The SNP and the Conservatives must tell us whether they think that the institutions of the EU are working fine as they are. They were set up for a union of 12 members; are they really still appropriate for a union of 27? What are the SNP's and the Conservatives' objections to setting out more clearly the limitations on the competences of the European Union? What are their objections to the strengthening of the principles of subsidiarity, which require that the European Union should only act when it adds value, or to enhancing the role of national parliaments to block EU legislation that does not comply with the principles of subsidiarity? What are their objections to the treaty's formal recognition of regional parliaments such as ours or to increasing the EU's democratic accountability by increasing the European Parliament's role by extending the areas of co-decision with the European Council?
Will Iain Smith give way?
I am running out of time.
What are the SNP's and the Conservatives' objections to reducing the size of the European Commission? On qualified majority voting, what are their objections to improving decision making in energy policy or humanitarian aid while retaining national control in justice, social security, tax and defence?
The UK opt-outs on justice and home affairs and the charter of fundamental human rights may continue to leave our citizens with fewer rights than those in the rest of Europe, but they also remove the last arguments in favour of a referendum on the reform treaty. The question that the supporters of a referendum on the EU reform treaty must answer is whether they are against the reform of the European Union or against the European Union.
In the UK, we have suffered too long from being the tail-end Charlies of Europe. It is a matter not so much of the tail wagging the dog as it is a matter of the tail dragging the dog back so that we miss out on our share of the bone. Because of a hostile media and, at times, equally hostile Governments, we have lost out on long-term gains by playing to narrow short-term national interest—for "national", we can usually read "party"—instead of embracing Europe to gain maximum advantage for the United Kingdom, Scotland and our citizens.
Despite that, Scotland and the UK have gained greatly by being members of the European Union. As I said in our debate in November, we must not forget that the EU rose from the ashes of two world wars that devastated Europe last century.
As part of the European Union, we are part of the world's largest trading bloc, which provides huge economic benefits for the United Kingdom. The single market has opened up opportunities for consumers, who can now buy goods from anywhere in the EU. Competition rules have driven down prices—for example, in telecommunications and air fares. We can work anywhere within Europe, and we have European migrant labour coming in to fill labour gaps in areas such as tourism, the rural industries and dentistry.
We have had many other benefits from being part of Europe, but Europe is not perfect. The reform treaty is vital for Europe, and good for Scotland and the UK. Reform is overdue and we cannot afford further delay from those who seek to pick a fight.
The Liberal Democrats do not believe that there is a need for a referendum on the reform treaty. Although we might not agree with everything in it, as a package it will bring about significant improvements to the democratic working of the European institutions. That is why we will oppose the motion and support the amendment.
We move to the open debate—I ask for speeches of six minutes.
Last week, we witnessed European leaders beaming from ear to ear, patting each other on the back, and hugging and kissing like a striker receiving adulation for scoring the best and most vital goal ever—that is, until the next most vital goal. What a spectacle, what pomp, and what a sell-out. They have connived and deluded, and conjured up a mumbo-jumbo of words to disguise and conceal from their own people the fact that they have signed the self-same thing that was conclusively rejected—the European constitution. The back-slapping bunch of so-called world leaders deluded only themselves with the smoke-and-mirrors scheme that they thought they had pulled off so well when they claimed that they had signed a brand new treaty.
However, that scheme had one vital flaw—one little aspect—that blew it apart and is hard to overlook. Did we have to trawl through all the scripts, documents and clauses to find that vital flaw? Did we have to call in hordes of researchers to uncover the stark truth? Did we have to spend a king's ransom to employ the best legal minds on the planet to expose them? No, we did not need to do any of that—the European leaders themselves told us.
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said:
"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
She went on to say that she wanted the new treaty to
"use different terminology without changing the legal substance".
Elmar Brok, the chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, said:
"Despite all the compromises, the substance of the draft EU Constitution has been safeguarded."
Rodríguez Zapatero, the President of Spain, said:
"We have not let a single substantial point of the constitutional treaty go".
Giscard D'Estaing, former President of France and chairman of the convention that wrote the constitution, said:
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly",
that
"All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way"
and that
"What was difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained".
He went on to say:
"Why not have a single text? The only reason is that this would look too much like the constitutional treaty. Making cosmetic changes would make the text more easy to swallow."
Finally, Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and vice-chairman of the convention, gave the game away and all the deceptions when he said:
"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
Labour promised a referendum and, of course, Gordon Brown sneaked in to sign up to the deception to avoid a referendum. The SNP wants a referendum on independence, so that we can give to the Scottish people and our country all the powers that we need. Labour does not want a referendum on the treaty, so that it can give away all the UK's powers to Europe. The SNP believes in the sovereignty of the people. Labour believes that the people are mushrooms to be kept in the dark and fed crap. When politicians who claim to be European leaders treat the peoples of Europe with such disdain and contempt, democracy is the loser in the long run.
In a previous debate on the matter, I pleaded with Gordon Brown to keep his word and give the people the referendum that he and his party promised. Given last week's events and Gordon Brown's actions, it is clear that my call fell on deaf ears. I ask him again to keep his word and hold a referendum. If he says no, I hope that it will be he who pays the price, not the people and democracy.
It is unfortunate that the previous speaker used such unparliamentary language. However, that is my opinion.
This is the third time that we have had a debate on the EU, as Malcolm Chisholm rightly said. My father-in-law would have described today's debate as filibustering: it is just an excuse for a Government that is frightened to have a debate about health. I am on the Health and Sport Committee, and precious little has been said about—
Will the member take an intervention?
Linda Fabiani did not take an intervention from me, so I do not see why I should take an intervention from Mr Russell.
The Government is frightened of a debate on health, but it is important to the people of Scotland that we have such a debate. I welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said last week that we will have a debate on health in due course, but it has been a long time coming.
I welcome Linda Fabiani's statement that the Government is pro-European, but if that is the case, why is it lying in bed with the Tories, who are known to be so anti-European?
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I am surprised that Linda Fabiani, as a pro-European, would work with that lot. Her accusation plays into the hands of EU opponents and those who would take us out of the EU—[Interruption.]
It would appear that Ms Eadie is not taking interventions at the moment.
I have spent all my adult life working to forge alliances across the EU and to forge links and better bonds between all the EU nations. I was delighted to hear Iain Smith's excellent speech, which came closest to describing the European situation that confronts us at the moment.
I have visited Brussels and Strasbourg many times, and I see no reason for us to oppose attempts to modify the treaties. The treaties would fill many rooms. That is the thrust behind the attempt to simplify the text of the treaties. At present, they are a Mecca for the solicitors.
Ted Brocklebank is so wrong about Gordon Brown. I know Gordon Brown very well. He is one of my constituents. I have worked with him for the past 30 years. He is not just my constituent, he is a very close personal friend. Last week, he would have been damned if he had and damned if he had not gone to the special signing of the treaty. He was called before the Liaison Committee at Westminster to answer serious questions on terrorism and a variety of other matters. If he had not been there, he would have been damned, but because he did not go to sign the treaty along with others, he was damned. He could not win. I believe that he was right.
Labour promised that there would be a referendum if there was a constitution, but the reform treaty is not a constitution. The mandate for the intergovernmental conference that drew up the reform treaty stated:
"The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single text called ‘Constitution', is abandoned."
The treaty is fundamentally different, especially for the UK, which has secured special arrangements in several areas. In the treaty, there is no mention of a constitution, the primacy of European law, an anthem, a flag or a motto. What we are hearing from the Tories and the SNP is just political opportunism.
Labour does not support a referendum on the treaty. The treaty is not integrationist. It sets out what the EU can and cannot do. It ensures that foreign policy remains at intergovernmental level, it protects national security, it gives national Parliaments a greater role and it provides a way for an enlarged union of nation states to work together for mutual benefit. It is critical that we take on board those points.
Scotland's subsequent route to EU membership could be tortuous if it followed the route to independence proposed by the SNP.
"The SNP's use of the phrase ‘Independence in Europe' seeks to persuade the Scottish electorate that it can have its cake and eat it … the real situation is that an independent Scotland might end up with all the insecurities of independence and none of the benefits of EU membership."
Those are not my words, but the words of Matthew Happold, a well-respected academic, said in January this year.
It would behove some members to take on board how much signing the treaty and getting it out of the way will allow us to move on. As the Prime Minister says, the treaty will allow us to move on to the issues that matter to the people of Scotland and the UK. It will allow us to protect our common law system, our police and our judicial processes. Above all, it will allow us to talk about the important issues that matter to us all throughout the UK. It will stop the navel gazing of looking simply at structural issues. The people of Scotland want us to pay attention to the substantive issues and they want the debate to move on from the sterile debate that the Tories and the SNP are giving us today. I will have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Malcolm Chisholm says that Alex Salmond is worth quoting, and I certainly agree. However, Gordon Brown is also worth quoting sometimes, so let me quote him—or at least his manifesto. He said that the treaty is
"a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes' vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."
The point has been made about the obvious betrayal in going back on that promise, but we should pay attention to the phrase "leading nation in Europe". How can the UK be a leading nation when the Prime Minister skulks into the room to sign the treaty after everyone else has left? That is political cowardice.
It is said that a week is a long time in politics, but two and a half years is obviously even longer. It has been time enough for Labour to change its views. I had hoped that, coming from a party that is adept at accusing others of breaking promises ad nauseum, Malcolm Chisholm would at least have the decency to concede that the Labour Party had broken a promise on the treaty.
The Labour Party has a special relationship with referendums. It held one for the Scottish Parliament because, we were told, Tony Blair was not a great fan of devolution and he wanted to lose—at least, so the rumours go. Yet Labour has proposed other referendums that it thought, or at least said, it would win. Members may remember that we were promised a referendum on the euro in Labour's 1997 manifesto, as well as a referendum on proportional representation at Westminster. It also proposed a referendum on the European treaty. Those are referendums that Labour has not held. It feels like the Labour Party is really committed only to referendums that it thinks it will lose—on which basis we look forward to support for a referendum on Scottish independence. The UK Government should hold a referendum on the EU reform treaty. If it does not, it will be not just the Labour Party but democracy itself that loses.
The Lib Dems for once had a point when Vincent Cable noted that no one under the age of 50 has had a vote on the EU. Incidentally, we are still waiting for one on the Act of Union 1707. However, it is the same for every other constitutional matter: referendums happen when specific proposals are put forward. The Lisbon treaty is a specific proposal, or a large set of significant proposals, and it—not the wider question of the EU in general, which is the subject of consensus across the political spectrum, aside from one or two fringe parties—should be voted on.
Such consensus is fairly rare. In the SNP, we have been campaigning for independence from London for 73 years, but we are happy to support the principles of the European Union, which is not a federation but a confederation.
We are halfway through the debate, and I wonder whether the member can enlighten us: what is the SNP's position on the treaty? Is it in favour of it or against it? It is a simple question.
Our position is evident from what I have said and what I am about to say, so if the member listens, he will understand.
The principles of confederation and subsidiarity—devolving decision making to the level that is closest to the people—are ignored when Governments go back on promises to consult people through a direct vote. Governments should remember that they govern in the name of and as set out by the people. When they change that substantially, their authority is diminished.
Those principles are also violated when the European Union takes on too much or centralises unnecessarily. Opposition members will not be surprised or delighted that I cite control over marine policy as an example of that. The Lisbon treaty entrenches Brussels's dominance over Scotland's biological marine resources, just as the UK grants London dominance over one or two other important offshore resources that I could name. I would prefer not to have either of those impositions, but getting rid of one would not be a bad start.
Fishing has been—deservedly—a red-line issue for the SNP for many years. It is a vital Scottish interest that is proportionally far more important to Scotland than it is to the UK as a whole. That is another sign of how the interests of Scotland and of the UK diverge.
As I have said before, unexpected common viewpoints can be found on fishing. For example, a Labour MP said on 26 April 2004:
"I think there is an argument for repatriation of control over fisheries and that the SNP has a valid point."
Those are, of course, the words of George Foulkes. Perhaps he will join the rest of his party in changing his mind not only on European control over fisheries but on a referendum. The Labour Government in Westminster is abandoning its promise to give the people a chance to have their say. That is bad for democracy and a disaster for trust in politics.
As for the point that Margo MacDonald made—unfortunately, she has left—we must constantly challenge ourselves and the EU to ensure that what the EU does benefits everybody and that there is interest in its policies. We should do that for ourselves and on behalf of the Scottish people.
The EU has been partly responsible for the peace that we have had since 1945, for the open markets that we enjoy, for workers' rights—when Her Majesty's Government has not tried to undermine them—and for many other developments, including environmental benefits. However, we must be aware of the dangers of an overweening EU, which can happen. The minister has taken the right approach in guarding against that danger while embracing the benefits.
I will point out one or two inconsistencies. The Tories did not want a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, but they want a vote on the Lisbon treaty. The Lib Dems are inconsistent and illogical, because they want to put a question that nobody else is asking. If Iain Smith thinks that it is impossible to vote against a treaty and remain a member of the EU, perhaps he should tell that to Holland, France, Ireland or Denmark. Labour wanted a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, but it does not want one on the Lisbon treaty, even though it explicitly promised one.
Helen Eadie mentioned an auld alliance. It is strange to hear that from a member of a party whose leader, Gordon Brown, has said that the SNP and the Tories are working together to undermine the union in the UK, at the same time as his party has joined with the Tories to save the UK. There is not much logic behind that position.
I commend the minister's balanced approach. She is looking after Scotland's interests. I urge members to support the motion.
I will pick up Keith Brown on his point about the Maastricht treaty—at no time did the Conservative party have a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on that treaty, which is what makes the Lisbon treaty different.
It is time for us to refocus the debate. The debate is not about whether we are pro-European, anti-European or something in-between, or whether we think that the status quo is acceptable. The debate is purely and simply about whether a referendum should be held on the Lisbon treaty. The facts are clear. At the previous general election, the Conservative party and the Labour Party had clear and unambiguous manifesto commitments to a referendum on the constitution. For Iain Smith's benefit, I add that the Liberal Democrats also made a manifesto commitment to a referendum on the constitution.
There is no constitution any more.
Just because Mr Smith says that the treaty is not a constitution does not make it so.
We need to consider in what ways the Lisbon treaty is different from and the same as the EU constitution. On the different side, we have heard precious little, not just in this debate but in previous debates. It has been said that there is no reference in the treaty to an EU flag, anthem or motto, therefore it cannot be a constitution, and we have heard about the famous red lines—or red herrings, as Mr Brocklebank called them—but the bottom line is that the red lines that the Government now talks about are identical to those that were talked about in 2004, when we proposed a referendum on the constitution. Nothing has changed in that regard. Just because Helen Eadie says that the treaty is not a constitution but is just a treaty does not make it so. That claim has about as much credibility as her saying that she would not take any interventions because the minister did not do so, although everybody in the chamber saw her taking two interventions.
In what ways are the treaty and the constitution the same? The veto would be lost in 60 areas, across a whole spectrum of policy fields—energy, employment, transport, justice, home affairs, intellectual property, the EU diplomatic service and health, to name a few. We have heard about the president, who would be in post for five years, and about the equivalent to a foreign secretary, under article 9 of the treaty. There is the ratchet clause in article 48, which would allow the treaty to be self-amending. That means that it could be revised and additional vetoes could be removed without an intergovernmental conference.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is referred to specifically. According to many legal opinions, EU judges could meddle firmly and strongly with UK labour laws. In total, 240 of the 250 provisions are pretty much identical or achieve almost the same result as the constitution, which is no great surprise, because under paragraphs 1, 4 and 18 of the mandate of the intergovernmental conference that set up the treaty, everything that was new in the EU constitution would be in the new treaty, unless specified otherwise. That was the IGC's starting point.
Neither in previous debates nor today have we heard about anything specific that has been left out of the EU treaty, although we have a range of comments from people who have given their opinions independently. The Labour MP Gisela Stuart, whom Ted Brocklebank quoted, said:
"96% of it is a word-for-word carbon copy … This is a deeply dishonest process".
That beats Malcolm Chisholm's point about humans and mice being 90 per cent identical. He needs to find a new analogy now that the figure is 96 per cent.
Ninety-eight per cent of our genetic material is the same as that of chimpanzees. Are we chimpanzees in this chamber?
That could be debated at length.
I return to the serious point of the debate—it is disappointing that the Greens cannot make a serious point. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who wrote the constitution, has been quoted. I had a look at his website and his blog. He has said:
"I have taken on the work of comparing the draft of the new Treaty of Lisbon with … the ‘nine essential points'"
of the constitution. He said:
"To my surprise, and, to tell the truth, to my great satisfaction, these nine points reappear word for word in the new project. Not a comma has changed! The only thing is that you have to really look for them because they are dispersed in the texts the new Treaty refers to … The only difference is that the qualified majority voting"
that he wanted
"is put off until … 2014"
instead of coming in immediately after ratification. To take matters further, The Economist, which is a fairly balanced magazine, has said that any Governments that promised a referendum but now refuse to hold one
"are being dishonest when they claim the new one is so different that those promises are moot".
There is a robust, watertight case for a referendum. The treaty is a constitution in all but name. No evidence has been presented to suggest that the treaty and the constitution are different. Therefore, we should have a referendum.
It goes without saying that the debate has something of déjà vu or "Groundhog Day" about it. I always welcome the opportunity to debate Europe.
There has been much discussion about whether the reform treaty is a constitution and to what extent there are similarities between the present text and previous texts. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Gisela Stuart have been quoted. I will quote the deputy president of the convention on the future of Europe, Giuliano Amato, who said:
"If someone in the UK is calling for a referendum, that is not because the text that we have in front of us is a Constitution."
I quote Giuliano Amato not just because he was deputy president of the convention on the future of Europe and is a former Prime Minister of Italy but because he was a full professor of comparative constitutional law at the University of Rome for more than 20 years.
Further, the German conservative President of the European Parliament, Hans Pöttering, said:
"Since making the Charter legally binding and extending the Community competence to JHA were two of the most important features of the original constitution, the deal struck by Tony Blair in June means that—for better or worse—much of the substance will simply not apply in Britain."
Of course, the opinions that I have quoted are personal opinions. It is important to look at one or two legal reviews in other member states. The Netherlands Council of State reported a few weeks ago:
"The purpose of all these changes is to rid the proposed Reform Treaty as far as possible of the elements from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe … This means that the proposed Reform Treaty is substantially different from the Treaty establishing a Constitution".
Finally, but perhaps most important, just last week in Denmark the Ministry of Justice published a report following a legal judicial review of the treaty, which concluded that a plebiscite is unnecessary in Denmark because the treaty does not transfer new powers to the European Union. The reason why that is so significant is that the Danish constitution explicitly stated that any international treaty that transfers sovereignty from the national Government must be agreed by a referendum before it can be ratified. That is why a referendum was previously planned in Denmark. The recommendation of the Danish Ministry of Justice, which echoes the views of the Netherlands Council of State and the Czech Government, exposes the inaccuracy of the claims of Conservative and SNP members.
I want to pick up a few points that the minister made in her opening remarks on the background to the future of Europe debate. I am possibly the only member present—perhaps with the exception of Iain Smith—who conducted the future of Europe inquiry with the previous European and External Relations Committee and made several submissions to the debate, which were agreed by members of all the parties on the committee, including Conservative and SNP members, and which made no reference to marine biological conservation because that was not raised in the evidence that was taken, including evidence from Sir Neil McCormick.
In forming our view, we on the committee held a convention in the Scottish Parliament at which ordinary citizens from throughout Scotland were invited to tell us what they wanted from the European Union. On the basis of that and months of evidence taking, our submissions on the future of Europe were made.
We can argue till the cows come home about what percentage overlap there is between the constitution and the treaty. Is it 60 per cent, 90 per cent or 95 per cent? If it were 60 per cent, would the Conservatives be more willing to accept it? I rather doubt it. I note that if one changed the United States constitution by 10 per cent, one could create a dictatorship. The range of opinion on the matter is as wide as Santa's Christmas list is long. Therefore, we need to evaluate what is pragmatic.
We agreed to enlargement and so Europe must reform. I return to the question that I posed when we first debated the matter in the chamber in September. Does the amended treaty allow us as parliamentarians to do a better job on behalf of the people of Scotland? An answer to that was reflected in the views of MEPs of all political parties just a few weeks ago when they came to the European and External Relations Committee. They said that yes, with some caveats, it does.
It is ironic that a Government that intends to deny the people of Scotland a second referendum on the detail of a negotiated settlement for independence, on the basis that that is for the Parliament to decide, wants to ask the people of Scotland to read the entire Lisbon treaty and to vote on it in a referendum. When we had the debate on the future of Europe, I recalled that, sadly, more people had voted in "The X Factor" and "Pop Idol" than in European elections. However, the Conservatives and the SNP would ask the people of Scotland to read the whole European reform treaty and to vote on it. It is unbelievable, but the parties opposite would have us call a referendum—
You should be finishing now Ms Oldfather.
—and would ask the Scottish people not to vote for a party or a person but to read a whole treaty. We are a parliamentary democracy; we should have an informed debate and take decisions on these matters—
You must finish now, Ms Oldfather.
—in the right place and for the right reasons. Too much is at stake—
I call Mike Rumbles.
—for Scottish jobs and Scottish manufacturing. I support—
I am sorry, but will you sit down please.
I will concentrate on one of the most important and topical elements of our dealings with Europe: fishing.
The SNP claims to be a pro-European party, but we could not have guessed that from some of the speeches that we have heard today. The SNP MEP Ian Hudghton said that the SNP would oppose the draft EU reform treaty if it maintained the current position on fisheries. Here we are, however, with a reform treaty that proposes no change to the competence over fisheries or the conservation of marine biological resources. Indeed, as we have heard, marine conservation has always been within the exclusive competence of the EU. The final treaty notes the continuing state of the competence on fishing. Will the SNP Government refuse to support ratification of the treaty because of the issues to do with fishing?
Does the member accept that the proposed wording of the reform treaty would entrench in primary law a proposition that has hitherto been a matter of judicial precedent in the interpretation of the UK accession treaty, and that that will make it much more difficult in future to renegotiate the common fisheries policy, which seriously needs renegotiation?
I think that that was the minister agreeing with what I have been saying. The EU has always had exclusive competence over fisheries and the treaty does not change that.
I made the point halfway through the debate, which is coming towards the end, that it is a bit rich for the SNP to hide behind a debate on a referendum on the treaty when it will not tell anyone whether it is in favour of the treaty or against it. It is time for the SNP to make its mind up.
On that point, the SNP is against the treaty as it is currently written. I thank Mr Rumbles for his graciousness in letting me make this intervention. Why will the Liberal Democrats' second-best leader of the week, Mr Clegg—a self-proclaimed listening leader—Mr Rumbles and the rest of their party not listen to the people who want to have a referendum? Is the party's name an oxymoron?
The last time I looked, we lived in a representative parliamentary democracy, which is why we have a Scottish Parliament for which we both campaigned for many years. Should we have government by referenda instead? I do not think so.
Will the member give way?
No; I have given way already.
On fishing, instead of doing what is best for Scotland, the SNP continues to posture and grandstand—it is as simple as that. If the SNP genuinely wants to do something positive for Scotland, and for Scotland's fishing communities in particular, it should realise that it is more important to ensure that Scottish interests are represented when the UK position is agreed with our colleagues in the other countries of the UK than it is to demand that Richard Lochhead be allowed simply to read out an agreed position at the EU negotiations. That is a silly thing to pursue.
Because fishing seems to be the key to the SNP's position on the reform treaty, it is worth examining the issue in some detail. One year ago, when he was just a shadow minister, Richard Lochhead published his 10 priorities for getting fishing communities on the road to recovery. Those were the decoupling of cod management from that of other species, increased quotas, including the haddock quota, an increase in the number of days at sea, and so on. Now that the SNP has been in power for seven months, it has had ample time to get moving on and to achieve some, if not all, of those 10 goals.
How many of the SNP's 10 so-called priorities will have been delivered when Richard Lochhead returns from Brussels today? Exactly zero. Instead of an increase in the number of days at sea—which, in opposition, Richard Lochhead claimed was a priority—we will be left with a cut. Instead of the increase in quotas that the SNP previously identified as a priority, we will have an 18 per cent reduction in the North Sea haddock quota and a 15 per cent reduction in the west of Scotland haddock quota. The list goes on. [Interruption.]
What a failure Richard Lochhead has been. He has been given an easy ride by the fishing industry since taking office but, as we all know, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The SNP's record on delivering on its promises to our fishing communities has been and is woeful. The cabinet secretary tries to talk a good game, but the SNP's record has not been lost on our fishermen.
The SNP needs to come clean in the debate and clarify its position on Europe. I understand the clarification that Kenny Gibson has given, but I wonder whether the minister, representing the SNP Government, will take such a stance in his summing up. Will he make it absolutely clear to us that the SNP Government is against the treaty? The SNP cannot have it both ways.
If SNP members fail to tell the Scottish people exactly where they stand on Europe, it will be difficult for them to dispel the commonly held belief that motions such as the one that is before us today, which demands a referendum on the European treaty, are a cynical effort to promote their own attempts to hold a referendum on the independence of Scotland. We have heard that in comments that have been made from a sedentary position by members such as Kenny Gibson.
The European reform treaty is too big an issue to be derailed by the SNP's petty party politicking on referenda. The Scottish National Party must finally realise that constitutional wrangling and bickering with Westminster should be of secondary importance to securing a good deal for Scotland and, in particular, our fishing communities.
We now move to wind-up speeches.
To some extent, this has been a depressing debate. I well appreciate that the Government is entirely entitled to lodge a motion calling for a referendum, but one might have thought that the major substance of the debate would have been to make the point that a referendum was wanted because of the issues and elements on which people wanted to concentrate. However, apart from making it clear that in any referendum the SNP would campaign against the treaty wholly and solely because of fisheries, SNP members have not given the rest of the treaty the credit or analysis that it deserves.
It is wrong to start counting the number of new words in the treaty and weighing them in the balance. The treaty divides itself into a number of serious compartments. One issue is the need to improve the whole nature of the European Union by enabling it to operate satisfactorily now that it has been extended to 27 member states. We cannot simply overlook the need for further extension of the principle of subsidiarity or gloss over the need for a reduction in the size of the Commission. We cannot say that making qualified majority voting the general rule will not hugely improve the EU's operation. Increasing the number of policy areas that are to be decided under the co-decision procedure is not a fundamental issue that will change radically the constitution of this country or any other member state. However, those are extensive reforms that will be made under the treaty.
Because of that, we get down to one or two issues. Ted Brocklebank was utterly dismissive as he attempted to conceal his barely concealable distaste for the whole European Union project. He went on about the honour of Gordon Brown, but that was a thinly veiled cover for his outright opposition to anything whispering of the European Union. His contemptuous dismissal of a permanent president of the EU Council—
Will the member give way?
I will just finish this point.
However, anybody who has attended meetings of the Council of Ministers knows—as I do after attending 40 of them—that having a changing presidency every six months is a wholly inefficient way of running the business. To have a permanent president will be a much better arrangement.
Secondly, deletions that have been made ensure that the United Kingdom still retains control of its foreign affairs. In any case, we should welcome the fact that at this time of tremendous pressure from the hegemony of United States foreign policy there will be one representative from the European Union to represent the Union in foreign councils.
Will Ross Finnie remind us again of the Liberal Democrats' attitude towards having a referendum? I seem to remember that, when he was leader of the party, Menzies Campbell had a particular attitude towards the issue; indeed, I believe that he supported having a referendum. What is the party's current policy?
The member should not quote statements from Menzies Campbell that he was obviously not present to hear. I was at the private conference at which Menzies Campbell made it clear that if—as the Conservatives clearly wish—we were going to have a debate on whether we should be in or out of the Union, he would want to have one.
He wanted a referendum.
Not on this treaty. Mr Campbell did not say that at all.
In the current treaty, three or four issues that affect the UK are now fundamentally different from those in the original proposition. First, in order to reflect UK law, the treaty now contains safeguards on the justiciable elements of the charter of fundamental rights. That was not the case before. Secondly, Britain can now choose to take part in justice and home affairs initiatives. Thirdly, Britain now retains control over its national defence and foreign affairs. Finally, not only have all references to the constitution been dropped, but a careful reading of the treaty makes it clear that the existing treaty structures remain.
Is Mr Finnie aware that the report by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, which is chaired by Michael Connarty, doubted whether the protocol on the charter of fundamental rights would prevent UK courts from being bound by European Court of Justice judgments? Is Mr Finnie content that the UK Government fully investigated these issues?
I am not and have never been a spokesperson for Michael Connarty; indeed, he and I contested an election in 1983. I am quite clear that these matters are not justiciable in this country.
As far as control of the marine biological resource is concerned, I am sure that, when he winds up, the minister will continue the debate over entrenchment rather than set out the law as it stands. There is of course an issue about managing the control of the biological resource and the common fisheries policy, but to suggest that, with regard to effective environmental control over the seas, where neither plankton nor fish respect national boundaries—
But what about national management?
That is what I am saying. That sort of management is very different from the kind of overarching control over the conservation of the marine biological resource that the EU has. If we give these matters back to the member states, we will attempt to do the impossible. The issue can be managed, but we need overarching principles that recognise that fish do not carry national flags.
A careful reading of the changes that have been made to the treaty show that we now have a long-overdue reform that will enable Europe to get on with its business more efficiently. The Treaty of Lisbon will greatly improve the Union's democratic character by increasing Parliament's powers, entrenching the principles of the charter of fundamental rights and strengthening the rule of law. For all those reasons, the treaty can be agreed. Moreover, because it does not affect our constitutional position, such agreement does not require a referendum.
The Scottish Conservatives warmly support the call in the Scottish Government's motion for the UK Government to have a referendum on the new EU treaty. I certainly do not agree with everything that the minister said in her opening remarks—for example, I did not think that it was necessary or appropriate for her to bring up once again the issue of independence and separate representation for Scotland—but I agreed with many of her comments, particularly on the key issue of whether there should be a referendum.
It was not so long ago that the proposal was for a new EU constitution. As we heard in the debate, there was never any doubt that such an issue should be subject to a referendum. As Ted Brocklebank said, the Labour Government made it clear in its manifesto that it believed that the constitution should be put to the people's vote. Now the argument is that because we have a treaty rather than a constitution, a referendum is not required. As we have heard throughout the debate, however, the treaty is just the old constitution reinvented, with some very minor changes.
The treaty will create the new post of EU president, who will control a power base of 3,500 civil servants. For the first time, the EU will have a foreign minister, but he will not be called the foreign minister—he will be called the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. The EU will be given a single legal personality for the first time, 60 further national vetoes will be abolished at a stroke and the EU will acquire new powers over criminal justice matters.
Crucially, the fact that the old constitution has simply been rebranded as an EU reform treaty is acknowledged by leaders from across Europe. Members have been bandying quotes around all afternoon, so let me produce some of my own. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel said:
"The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained in large part."
The Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said:
"Thankfully they haven't changed the substance—90 per cent of it is still there."
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who drafted the original constitution, said of the treaty that the public was being
"led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly."
On the position of EU foreign minister, Bertie Ahern said:
"It's the original job as proposed but they just put on this long title".
The new treaty is a constitution in all but name, and that is precisely why we need a referendum.
I am delighted that the SNP has joined us in calling for a UK referendum in which the issue would be put to the people. I am disappointed but not surprised by the fact that the Labour Party is sticking to its guns and loyally defending Gordon Brown, whose position is indefensible; that is only to be expected. However, the Liberal Democrat approach to the issue is, frankly, bizarre. Not so long ago, under their former leader, poor old Ming the hapless, who was brutally assassinated in the traditional Liberal manner—he was stabbed in the back as he shuffled down the road to collect his pension—
Just be a wee bit careful, Mr Fraser. I am not really happy with such remarks.
Under Ming Campbell, the Liberal Democrats supported a referendum, not on the reform treaty, but on whether we should be a member of the EU at all.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will be happy to let Mr Rumbles rebut my point once I have made it.
Membership is not the point in question, because it is quite possible to reject the European treaty or constitution and still to be good Europeans who want to be part of the EU. As I said in debate a few weeks ago, the Liberal Democrat position is a bit like taking someone to a very expensive restaurant that has an extensive menu and telling them that if they will not eat the tripe, they will have to go home hungry.
On the subject of tripe, the Conservatives have joined the SNP in calling for a referendum on the treaty. How long will it be before they join their SNP colleagues in calling for a referendum on Scottish independence?
We will never support a referendum on independence. I will take no lessons on referendums from Mr Rumbles when his party cannot make up its mind. Perhaps there is hope, however. Under their new leader—Chris Clegg—the Liberal Democrats might finally make up their minds on their position.
Did rejecting the EU constitution make the people in France or those in the Netherlands bad Europeans? No, it did not. It is not a question of being in or out of Europe; it is a question of the type of Europe that we want, and the people have a right to choose.
The Labour Government has tied itself in knots over the issue and seeks to deny the people a referendum. Gordon Brown could not even bring himself to turn up to the signing ceremony in Lisbon. He sneaked in the back door and signed it late. Poor old David Miliband was sent all alone to be present at the ceremony. When all the other foreign secretaries from across Europe were shaking the hands of their heads of Government to celebrate, he was left shaking the hand of poor Ms Verena Schubert, an usher in the building. Poor old David Miliband was left hanging out to dry by our Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister and the Labour Party were so reluctant to associate themselves with the treaty that they would not even turn up for the formal signing. That tells us all that we need to know about their confidence in the measures. The matter should be referred forthwith to a people's referendum. It is right that people should have their say, which is why we are pleased to support the motion.
Because members did not finish their speeches when I asked them to do so, I could not call Kenny Gibson and the final two speakers will be one minute down.
I remind Murdo Fraser that Gordon Brown at least turned up to sign the treaty, which is more than Margaret Thatcher did for the Single European Act or John Major did for the Maastricht treaty.
On more substantial matters, I fear that my prediction about the exaggerating and distorting arguments of the Conservatives was borne out in the debate. There are many examples, but I will give one or two. A fundamental point for many speakers was the allegation that the constitutional treaty and the reform treaty are the same. My former colleague Michael Connarty was invoked. I do not agree with everything that Michael Connarty said in his report, but none of the members who mentioned him quoted his key comment that there is substantial identification between the two treaties
"for those countries which have not requested derogations or opt outs from the full range of agreements in the Treaty".
Even Michael Connarty admitted that the UK belongs in a completely different category.
Murdo Fraser made the mistake of not doing that when he talked about new EU powers over criminal justice and strangely omitted to mention that the UK Government can decide on a case-by-case basis whether to opt in to a particular policy.
Ted Brocklebank talked about a common energy policy, but new article 176A says:
"measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply".
I hope that Ted Brocklebank welcomes the role that the EU will play in promoting energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy.
I have made the point about the EU foreign minister many times, including to Margo MacDonald when she intervened during my opening speech, so I will not waste members' time by repeating myself.
Gavin Brown talked about the loss of the veto in 60 areas, but the extensions of qualified majority voting pale into insignificance compared with the extensions in the Single European Act under Baroness Thatcher. There are 49 extensions in the treaty, of which 13 do not apply because of the UK's justice and home affairs opt-in and other derogations and nine are minor and technical. I think that only nine of the extensions are of genuine substance, and all of those are modest and sensible and I hope would be supported by members. For example, decisions on emergency humanitarian aid to third countries will be subject to qualified majority voting.
If there were to be a referendum, would the Scottish Labour Party appreciate the support of the Scottish Green Party in campaigning for a yes vote?
I welcome the positive attitude of the Green Party towards Europe, which I am sure is related not least to the new EU competence on climate change and the many other positive measures that the EU has taken on the environment.
Liberal Democrat members will forgive me if I do not spend long on their speeches. I agree substantially with what they said about fisheries and welcome their reinforcement of the point about exclusive competence over marine biological resources having been in the treaty for a long time. I also welcome Ross Finnie's comments about the inadequacy of a presidency that changes every six months and the problems that that creates. Ross Finnie was speaking from experience.
Does the member accept that the SNP is concerned about marine biological resources because during the eight years when Labour was in power 1,000 Scottish fishing boats were decommissioned, 3,000 fishermen lost their jobs, 1,000 fish processing jobs were lost and the white-fish fleet fell by two thirds, while other European countries, such as Spain and Ireland, which had a seat at the top table, were able to increase their fishing fleets?
It is clear from today's news that the SNP Government has benefited from the difficult decisions on stock conservation that Ross Finnie and the previous Administration took. The member's comments do not contradict the points that were made about exclusive competence.
Again, Labour speakers made many useful points. I cannot spend too much time on them other than to say that Irene Oldfather's point on Denmark was particularly relevant. Helen Eadie made an impassioned speech. I endorse everything that she said and pay tribute to all the work that she has done throughout her life to forge bonds across the EU.
In my last two minutes, I must, of course, move on to address the SNP speeches. Gil Paterson included various quotes on the constitution and treaty in his contribution, which contrasted to those that Irene Oldfather and I gave. People can pick on the similarities or differences between the constitution and treaty, but key to whether a referendum is necessary are the differences. Gil Paterson may have taken the moral high ground on a referendum, as Keith Brown did, but, in my speech, I emphasised the SNP's shifting position on the issue over the past three months. Indeed, the SNP's position on a referendum was a key feature of the debate, along with its lack of clarity on the treaty.
Because the debate was shortened, I had to omit a section of my speech on the SNP's shifting position on the common fisheries policy. Given that one of the ministers with responsibility for fisheries is winding up the debate, perhaps he will clarify the SNP Government's position on the CFP. The SNP's manifesto policy is to work towards withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. However, it remains profoundly unclear how that policy is compatible with EU membership. The latest formulation of the SNP position on the CFP was made on 3 December when Linda Fabiani spoke of reforming it. The SNP seems to recognise that its policy on the CFP is no longer tenable. We welcome clarification from the minister on the issue.
I am sorry that I have spent so much time in both my speeches today on fisheries policy. The fact of the matter is that the Scottish Government is obsessed with that aspect of the reform treaty to the exclusion of all others. Legitimate questions need to be asked about the treaty and its implications for the Scottish Parliament, particularly in terms of justice and home affairs and the operation of the UK's opt-in. We heard nothing from the Government about that today, however. The European and External Relations Committee has also heard nothing in response to its questions on the subject. I assume that the Scottish Government has held discussions with the UK Government on the matter, but there is a complete lack of transparency on this and many other aspects of its European policies. All that we have are silence, shifting opinions and, in terms of exclusive competence, the use of a highly misguided opinion.
Above all, the debate was about the Government's sheer political opportunism in calling for a referendum. The Government was misguided in lodging the motion. A call for a referendum is totally out of step with the people of Scotland's attitude toward Europe, which is positive and realistic—unlike the view of the Scottish National and Conservative parties.
As a number of speakers said in summing up, many members have been disappointed by the debate. I am sure that that is also true of Sir Neil MacCormick, who is in the gallery. He knows more about Europe than almost anyone in the chamber.
The debate reminds me of the Christmas crackers that one gets at a certain type of luncheon. They start well—they look good and go off with a bang. I am sure that my colleague, the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, will not mind my saying that about her opening speech. Then, however, one is confronted with three things: a useless object the purpose of which you are not entirely sure and which breaks anyway; a small piece of paper with an inexplicable motto; and a paper hat that falls to pieces. I will allocate those three things at the start of my speech. Undoubtedly, the object that started off rather well and looked interesting, only to fall to pieces, was Malcolm Chisholm's introduction to the debate. He said nothing to persuade the Government that he believed in the right of the people of Scotland to decide their future. That is such a fundamental thing that not to mention it in either his speech or his amendment was a major problem.
Will the minister give way?
No. I must make progress.
The small piece of paper with the meaningless motto was the speech from Helen Eadie. I remain completely baffled by it. Does she want Europe to be effective or does she want to argue about a variety of other issues? I do not know.
I come to the paper hat that falls to pieces. One puts on the hat only for it to slip down and eventually end up around one's neck where it becomes an annoying encumbrance. Mike Rumbles's speech was just that—an annoying encumbrance. He was also factually incorrect in what he said about fisheries and Richard Lochhead's great success today in Europe.
The debate is first and foremost about the Scottish people's right to choose their future. It is absolutely fundamental to the Parliament that the Scottish people be given that right. We argue for that right as a pro-European Government. We support a referendum, not because we believe that the European Union is fundamentally flawed, that we should withdraw from it or that we should wreck it, but because we want to establish a democratic and effective European Union of which Scotland will become a member state. The rules that govern the European Union should be in line with Scotland's priorities and democratic imperative. In short, we want a people's Europe, not a political parties' Europe.
I have a paper hat here for the member, if he cares to use one. Will he make it clear whether the SNP Government is in favour of or opposed to the treaty?
Mr Rumbles is, as usual, somewhat behind the debate, but let me be entirely clear: were Scotland an independent member of the European Union—as I profoundly hope that we will be—we would not be faced with that question. The question would be: "How well have we negotiated?" Of course, if a referendum has red lines, those red lines dictate the view of a political party. We have red lines.
Mike Russell takes the moral high ground about a referendum and castigates me for not supporting one. Why was today's SNP line on a referendum never even mentioned in the debate on the EU reform treaty on 19 September and not articulated in the debate on 8 November either?
My colleague Linda Fabiani informs me that it was. We are open and optimistic people—we constantly hope for the best and we hope for things to change. Not until the last minute, when we were let down by the UK Government, were we able to take our position. We were let down and we continue to be let down.
There is a lot more to the treaty than fisheries, but I will finish on that point. Fishing is of real importance to Scotland's economic prosperity, particularly that of its rural communities. That importance is all the more germane today, given that the EU fisheries council in Brussels this morning reached agreement on the days at sea for Scottish fishermen in 2008 and on some final quota issues. The deal at the council is a good one for Scotland. I congratulate Richard Lochhead on securing a groundbreaking deal for Scotland that, for the first time ever, devolves to Scotland the allocation of days at sea. If we had had that type of achievement every year, we would not have been in the difficulties that we have been in. If we can get that kind of deal as part of the UK, just imagine how much better the deal would have been if we sat on the council as an independent member state and with a reformed common fisheries policy.
I will conclude on the issue of the common fisheries policy, with its centralised, top-down, regulatory approach and the annual inefficient and resource-intensive haggling over quotas. The policy has been a failure in Europe and a disaster for Scotland. It has failed to deliver the protection of stocks that it was purported to achieve and at the same time it has deeply alienated fishermen and their communities—the very people whose confidence was needed to secure long-term sustainable fisheries. Criticism of the common fisheries policy has been going on for many years and has come from many and varied quarters. It must be one of the most unloved long-established pieces of regulation anywhere in the world. I would have said the democratic world but, alas, Europe is not democratic.
Please sit down. I ask the member please not to lecture me on democracy—he is a Liberal Democrat.
Scotland is leading the way in Europe by working in partnership with our fishermen and conservation groups to bring stakeholders together to find shared innovative solutions. We accept that the Commission is making slow steps in the right direction with a greater emphasis on regionalisation, but more radical redesign is necessary. The First Minister recently announced our intention to establish an expert group to devise new and innovative ways to manage our valuable fisheries outwith the context of CFP reform. We will press unswervingly for an effective replacement for the CFP when it ends in 2011.
The debate has been about more than fisheries, although that subject is very important. I commend our motion to the chamber. It is about giving the Scottish people the right to choose. I repeat a remark that I made some minutes ago: we want a people's Europe, not a political parties' Europe. Let us vote for the people of Scotland and the people of Europe.