It is a pleasure and a privilege to be able to make this statement today. [Interruption.] I urge right hon. and hon. Members to contain their enthusiasm. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which was held last Thursday. The no vote on the treaty in the referendum is important because of our strong national interest in an effective European Union, and that vote needs to be respected. The next step is for the Irish Government to give their views on how to proceed from this point, consistent with their aims for Ireland’s role in the EU. They have made it clear that they need time to absorb and analyse the result and its implications and to consult widely at home and abroad. The Irish Prime Minister has said that he is disappointed by the result but wants Ireland to continue to play a full part in the life of the EU.
I have just returned from a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg, and that message was reiterated by the Irish Foreign Minister at that meeting. He emphasised the diverse nature of the Irish debate, and the overlap in the debate between issues that are affected by the treaty and those that are not. He also expressed his appreciation that around Europe, leaders had committed themselves to work co-operatively with Ireland. He committed Ireland to work for a common European approach, with Ireland at the heart of Europe. There will be further discussion among Heads of State and Foreign Ministers at the European Council this Thursday and Friday not to take final decisions but to hear a preliminary report from the Irish Government and preliminary thoughts on the next steps.
The rules of the treaty and of the EU are clear. All 27 member states must ratify the treaty for it to come into force, and we on the Government Benches will defend that principle extremely strongly. There is no question of ignoring the Irish vote or of bulldozing Irish opinion. Ireland clearly cannot be bound by changes that it has not ratified. Equally, there is no appetite for a return to years of institutional negotiation. The EU as a whole needs to find a way forward for all countries that allows the EU to focus on the big policy issues that confront us.
Eighteen countries have approved the Lisbon treaty. The Irish Government have set out clearly their respect for the right of other countries to complete their ratification processes. My conversations with other Foreign Ministers, representing all shades of political opinion across the EU, show this to be a very strongly held view. The reason for the approach is simple: an Irish vote is determinant of an Irish position but cannot determine the ratification decision of other countries. The British view is for this Parliament to determine. In this House and the other place, there have been 24 days of debate, and both Houses have voted strongly in favour of the European Union (Amendment) Bill at each stage. The final stage is Third Reading in the other place on Wednesday.
The Government believe that ratification should proceed as planned. It must be right that every country takes its own view on the treaty in accordance with its democratic traditions. That is right according to democratic principle; it is right in terms of our negotiating position in the EU; and it is right in terms of our national interest.
Our national interest is a strong Britain in a strong European Union. The EU now consists of 27 countries and 490 million people. The reform of EU institutions and working practices is important to ensure that the EU can function more effectively and cohesively, and to ensure that the EU embraces an outward-looking agenda that tackles in an effective way international issues such as migration, climate change, security and defence policy and counter-terrorism. But treaty change rightly requires unanimity across all countries. That is why it is right that we take the time to allow the Irish Government to make proposals on what they will do next, right that we assert Britain’s national interest in an effective EU that addresses the problems of the modern world, and right that we work to maintain the cohesion of the EU. That is what the Government will be doing in the weeks and months ahead, and I commend that approach to the House.
The Foreign Secretary began by saying that the referendum result in Ireland is important because of our national interest in an effective European Union. I agree with him about that, but I hope that he agrees with me that it is also important because it is an inspiring example of democracy in action. People say that there is a disconnection between the EU and its peoples, but Thursday’s vote was proof that when people are given a real say on the EU, they respond in vast numbers with turnout higher than in any European elections held in this country. Was it not also a courageous vote, given that the threats that Ireland would suffer if it voted no did not deter the Irish from making their own decision on the treaty? I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary did not find it in himself to congratulate Irish voters on either of those points.
Following as it does the French and Dutch rejections of the original constitution— a treaty that was, in the words of the then Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, “90 per cent.” the same as the Lisbon treaty—is it not now clear beyond doubt that there is profound opposition among the peoples of Europe to the substance of this treaty? Given that no one would ever call the peoples of France, the Netherlands and Ireland anti-European, is it not now clearer than ever that it is absurd to describe as anti-European disagreement with a treaty that further centralises power away from Europe’s nation states towards remote EU institutions?
The Foreign Secretary has said that the result has to be respected and that
“there can be no question of bulldozing or bamboozling or ignoring the Irish vote”.
We very much agree with that. However, is not that exactly what he and the Prime Minister are doing by pressing on with ratification in this country? If that is the Government’s position, why was one newspaper briefed yesterday that the Prime Minister
“is privately ready to sacrifice the Lisbon treaty”?
If that is the Government’s true position, why will not Ministers say so? Instead of the Government trying to have it both ways, why can we not have some clarity from them? Did not a previous Labour Foreign Secretary set out the only right course for this country yesterday, when he wrote:
“by any conceivable test of democratic procedure, the House of Lords should vote to put Treaty ratification on ice...to simply plough ahead on a straight vote to accept or reject the EU...Bill is to demonstrate nothing less than a contempt for the democracy on which the European Union is supposed to be founded”?
Is not the Czech Prime Minister right to say that the Irish no is
“no less serious than the previous French and Dutch noes”?
So why, given that after those referendums the then Foreign Secretary came here to announce that the ratification of the constitution was suspended, has this Foreign Secretary come here to announce the opposite? Is the message that in today’s EU small countries do not count?
Should not the Government now plainly state that Britain will suspend ratification in this country immediately, give a clear message at this week’s summit that the treaty is finished, and make the fundamental point that no lasting political institutions can be built in democratic societies without the people’s consent? Is that not what real respect for the referendum would mean? Is it not essential that all preparations for implementing the treaty, including on the European External Action Service, are now suspended and that the EU takes no action that is not legally provided for under the current treaties? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that respecting the result means not asking the Irish people to vote again? Will he undertake on the Government’s behalf that they will take no part in any bullying of Ireland? Would it not be extraordinary for the Irish to vote twice on this treaty, when British voters have not had the opportunity to vote once?
The Foreign Secretary has said that ratification here must proceed so that there can be a “British view” on the treaty, but the reality is that the Government have never spoken for the British view. If they want to find out the British view, are there not two very easy ways for them to do so? The first is to call a general election, of which the Prime Minister is, with good reason, terrified; and the second is to keep the promise that the Government made at the last election to call a referendum in the United Kingdom, which would assuredly tell the people of Ireland that in rejecting the Lisbon treaty they are by no means alone.
Let me address the three key elements of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. First, it is in this Parliament that we decide the British view of our treaties—that is what we have always done, including when the right hon. Gentleman was in government.
I believe that it is right that we—[Interruption.]
I believe that it is right that we defend the sovereignty of this Parliament and our right to take a view on how Britain should approach the issue. Every other country in Europe is going to take a view on the treaty—18 already have. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that Britain suspends itself in some kind of limbo while the other countries take a view on the next steps forward. That is not a recipe for strength for Britain; it is a recipe for weakness.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has discovered a new-found love for the way in which the European Union is working at the moment. He said yesterday that it is working “pretty well”. That is pretty rich, coming from him. He is the man who denounced the current arrangements as
“three more major steps on the road to a superstate.”
That is what he said when the current arrangements came into force, but today he tries to tell us that we should rely on the current arrangements because they are working pretty well. He also said that
“a Conservative Government will not ratify it as it stands.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 353.]
In other words, he is now saying that he wants to embrace a treaty—the treaty of Nice—that he denounced seven years ago as the end of civilisation as we know it.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should understand one further point about the Nice treaty. He says that that treaty would make life simple. The first thing that will happen, if we embrace the Nice treaty as he recommends, is a new institutional debate about the number of commissioners—an issue left unresolved by the Nice treaty. Precisely the sort of institutional discussion that he says we should abandon or move beyond would be restarted by his proposal.
On the Labour Benches, we all have much respect for Lord Owen and his contribution. We respect his foreign policy expertise—[Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends do not, however. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman cites Lord Owen’s arguments as a model of democracy. In this House and in the other place, the Bill on the treaty has been passed by large majorities, including significant votes from the right hon. Gentleman’s own party.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of the Czech Government, and he is right that the Czech constitutional court is currently examining the Lisbon reform treaty. It is right, therefore, that the Czech Government cannot proceed with ratification at this stage, because the treaty is before their court. But the Italian Government, a centre-right Government who were recently elected, have said that they will proceed with parliamentary ratification as scheduled The Dutch Government, also on the centre-right of politics, say:
“The Irish ‘No’ does not mean that we or other member states should stop”.
The Swedish Government, also on the centre-right of politics, say that ratification will continue as proposed. It seems to me that it is right that we do as well.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that respecting the result should mean that there should be no bullying of Ireland. He is absolutely right about that, which is why I defended today—and will continue to defend—the right of the Irish Government to take their time about how they want to respond to this result, and how they want to come back to the matter. It is for the Irish Government to decide what their position is going to be. The treaty cannot come into force unless the Irish Government succeed in ratifying it—it cannot succeed in coming into force—and the Irish constitution is absolutely plain that constitutional change requires the consent of the people; it is absolutely clear on that. That is why it is right that we wait for them to decide on their next steps, but it is also right that we are clear about our responsibilities to ensure that there is a British view in the discussions. That is what we are determined to do.
This weekend, the Government of Kosovo took over responsibility from the United Nations. A few weeks ago, the people of Serbia elected a Government on a pro-European platform. Throughout the western Balkans, the people of the former Yugoslavia are looking to the future enlargement of the European Union. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that this Government and this Parliament will continue to work for future enlargement of the EU to include the whole of the Balkans, and will he do whatever is necessary to make that possible?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I believed that enlargement had support from hon. Members of all parties, although, to judge from the conference speech of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in September, there would be a referendum every time there was any treaty change, even enlargement, if his party ever came to power. He shakes his head, but his conference speech states that any increase in central power—in other words, treaty change—will lead to a referendum, even on climate change or enlargement, about which he says that he cares. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must defend enlargement.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for coming to the House so quickly.
While many in Britain, including the Liberal Democrats, find it difficult to see any way in which to continue with the Lisbon treaty, would not it be wrong to be seen to anticipate discussions with our European partners? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not in Britain’s national interest to be perceived as prejudging this weekend’s summit?
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House the process whereby the UK ratifies all treaties, including Lisbon, and state whether a treaty is ratified by a Third Reading vote in one House of Parliament or through Crown prerogative? If the Government proceed with Third Reading in the Lords and Royal Assent this week, do they intend to withhold depositing the instrument of ratification in Rome until after the European summit?
The questions that the Irish vote raises are posed to us all, whether we are pro or anti-Lisbon. If the treaty of Lisbon falls, the European Union may well have to manage under the institutional arrangements that have worked adequately for the past seven years. They are bequeathed by the Nice treaty, which the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said at the time would be “a disaster”. Whether the European Union’s operation is to be based on Nice or Lisbon, is not our immediate challenge to obtain a decision, one way or the other, at the forthcoming summit and thus avoid further delay and uncertainty?
Whatever the frustrations and difficulties caused by the loss of Lisbon, could not the cause of European co-operation be much more seriously damaged by yet another protracted period of member states being distracted by institutional debate or talk of a two or three-speed Europe?
With or without Lisbon, in a world of uncertainty and danger, Britain’s national interest remains in the European Union, playing a positive role. It is time for the European Union to focus all its energy on the agenda of economic reform, climate change and tackling terrorism. The Foreign Secretary’s job now is to ensure that Britain plays that constructive role in Europe so that Europe’s benefits become ever clearer to the peoples of Europe.
I will start with the hon. Gentleman’s last point: the way in which the European Union can bridge the gap between politicians and people, whether nationally or at European level, is to ensure that it focuses on the issues that matter to people. International issues such as energy and climate change, migration and terrorism are precisely those that the European Union should address.
The hon. Gentleman asked about prejudging discussions at the weekend. It is important to proceed with ratification because the Lisbon treaty is good for Britain—among other things, it increases our voting weight. I do not believe that he meant ratification when he referred to prejudging the outcome. We should certainly not prejudge what Prime Minister Cowan will report.
The hon. Gentleman asked a technical question. Royal Assent means the enactment of a Bill—the turning of a Bill into an Act. As article 6 of the treaty states, ratification depends on the deposit by all 27 countries of the ratification articles in Rome. Clearly, that will not happen before the European Council this Thursday and Friday.
As for the fast track to institutional debate, as I said earlier, the Nice treaty left the number of commissioners unresolved. That is one of the things that the Lisbon treaty was created to resolve, and it did that. If Lisbon does not come into force, one consequence is that the institutional debate about the number of commissioners will restart.
rose—
Order. It is clear that many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. We still have the main business to follow the statement and I therefore ask for short, single questions and brief responses so that more hon. Members may be successful.
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s assurance that we will proceed with ratification of the Lisbon treaty in Parliament. Will he confirm that he is in discussion with his Cabinet colleagues about how best to take forward some of the most urgent issues of policy substance that face the European Union, especially how to deal with climate change at such a difficult time of rising global energy prices?
Yes. Given your demand for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can answer that question clearly. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that one of the French presidency’s top priorities over the next six months is precisely to make progress on energy and climate change.
If the Irish people had been deliriously happy with the way in which the European Union operates, they would have given a more favourable opinion of the Lisbon treaty. Perhaps the lesson for those who operate in Brussels is that they cannot afford to let any democracy into the European Union at all, otherwise the wheels start coming off.
That is ironic, given that the Bill increases the democratic influence of both national Parliaments and the European Parliament. As for the position of the Irish people, the hon. Gentleman will have seen, as I have, that even those parties that urged a no vote in the referendum proclaimed themselves pro-European parties.
I’m pro-European.
The hon. Gentleman may point to himself and say that, but that is not generally the way he is seen in the House—and, from his smile, perhaps he understands why. The truth is that all the opinion polls make it clear that 80-plus per cent. of people in Ireland support Irish participation in the European Union, including in the euro.
The Irish no is a problem for the European Union and its political elite, not for Ireland, and it needs to be resolved at the EU level. Given that the Queen’s Speech will not be until 4 December, there is no rush for us to proceed to Third Reading. We should not take part in bullying Ireland into a decision by rushing the Bill through.
I wholeheartedly agree—I do not think that I could have made this clearer—that there is no question of anyone bullying the Irish.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that I am bullying the Irish, but I do not see how I could conceivably be bullying them, since I have gone out of my way to emphasise that the treaty cannot come into force unless it is ratified in Ireland. We are absolutely clear on that point, and he can talk to Irish politicians on any side of the divide. He will know—[Interruption.] Hon. Members suggest that Ireland has been ostracised. The fact that leaders from all over Europe have said that Ireland must be given time to decide on its next move—[Interruption.] No, the Irish Prime Minister has asked for time and every European leader has agreed. On previous occasions, the Opposition have condemned Governments throughout Europe for making snap judgments. No Government have done so in this case; they are giving Ireland the chance to figure out its next move.
Will the Foreign Secretary just for once rise to the occasion and realise that the problem lies not in Ireland or with the Irish Government, but with the European Union, which is widely regarded as centralised, remote, undemocratic, wasteful and inefficient? Will he take a lead, by going back to the Laeken declaration of 2001 and reconvening that conference, but this time designing a Europe that is properly democratic, respects self-government and is based on the consent of the peoples of Europe, freely expressed in national referendums, including one in this country?
The right hon. Gentleman participated in the Laeken convention with diligence and seriousness of purpose, but the last thing that Europe needs is another seven years of wrangling about its institutions. This is not the issue that the people of Europe want us to address. If one message has come out of the Irish referendum, it is a command for the leaders of Europe to embrace the agenda of real issues, such as the economy, social policy—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks says, “Exactly.” The Lisbon treaty drew a line under institutional reform, and rightly so in my view. It said that there would be no further institutional reform until 2017. That is the approach that has been rejected in the Irish referendum. If the treaty is not ratified in Ireland, it cannot come into force across the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, that issue needs to be addressed—I have not described it as a problem, because it would be wrong to do so and would imply that the Irish were somehow doing something that was beyond their rights. They have not. They have made their views clear. Their constitution requires them to have referendums. That is perfectly legitimate, and we should defend their right, because that is their constitutional system.
Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Laeken declaration of December 2001 set out a process that would result in the EU becoming more democratic, transparent and efficient and having social and economic objectives? Given the Irish referendum, will he work as hard as he can with the other 26 member states to see that those objectives are met?
My hon. Friend raises an important point, as the Laeken declaration did address the social, economic and environmental agenda, as well as the political agenda, that Europe’s leaders needed to address. I think that it is incumbent on us to complete this process of institutional reform—what I call the old agenda of the European Union—and embrace the new agenda, which is about the policy issues that the people of Europe want to see properly addressed.
As one of the regrettably few people who voted for the Lisbon treaty when it came before the House, I am obviously very sad about the outcome of the Irish referendum. It is going to be difficult for the Taoiseach to work out exactly what issues the Irish are most concerned about on the basis of this confused referendum. It has happened, however, and I am sad that the treaty cannot legally come into place. Will the Foreign Secretary nevertheless work to do what he can to safeguard the best things in the Lisbon treaty, many of which might be applied practically, and will he have a closer look at the accession treaty for Croatia, which may well provide the Irish with an opportunity to put forward some proposals to get them off the hook?
In respect of the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which was about Croatia, I do not think that the Irish are on a hook. We are clear that an important signal must be sent to Croatia that there are no new blockages in its way to accession as a result of what has happened. It is important for its accession process to continue. In respect of the first part of the question, I do not think that now is the time to start cherry-picking parts of the Lisbon treaty. The rules are clear—that the treaty comes into force if all 27 member states ratify it—and we should rest there at the moment. We should allow the ratification process to continue in all countries; we should then see what the Irish decide to do and plan our next moves after that.
The Foreign Secretary is being exceedingly kind to the Irish in wanting to give as much time as possible in order to reach some sort of solution to what I can only call a Milliganesque situation resulting from the referendum. It may be necessary at some stage to find ways in which we can proceed, with or without the Irish. Together with his colleagues in Europe, he should now be thinking seriously about we might move forward—unfortunately, perhaps as a two-speed Europe—and ensure that all the advantages that Britain has seen over the years are not dissipated by this particular vote, which represents a very small percentage of the total votes in Ireland.
I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend’s commitment to the EU, which we have discussed through his membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have to tell him, however, that I do not support a two-speed Europe, which I think would be a step backwards—if it were possible. I say “if it were possible” because Ireland is, of course, a member of the euro. The idea that we will be able to design one set of institutions for 26 member states and another set for Ireland is neither possible nor right. When we and the Irish talk about finding a common European approach, I believe that that is the right thing to do. My hon. Friend is right that the search for consensus can cause delay, but it also increases legitimacy. It is important that we continue that search. If there is a treaty rule requiring 27 member states to sign before a treaty can come into force, it is important that we follow it.
As someone who voted for the treaty, does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that when the German and French Governments said that the Irish verdict could be overridden or ignored, it was both arrogant and unacceptable? Has he communicated that feeling to them?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will send me those quotations. I have talked to the French and German Foreign Ministers about this and I have read the statements of Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy, and the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion does not accord with what I have read or heard from those two countries. In fact, since Friday, the European debate has been notable for the absence of any rush to judgment and for the fact that leaders—whether they be from France or anywhere else, including this country—are not saying that Ireland should be bulldozed. I would like to see the quotations on which he has based his assertion.
I believe that the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to refer to the large majorities in this Chamber—a two-thirds majority on every single vote—and in the other House, where a majority of 62 was helped by two bishops, the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Chester, who are people I do not normally agree with.
Is it not the truth of the matter that our constituents are probably less interested in institutional change in Europe and far more interested in their energy bills? Without proceeding with ratification of the treaty, how can we ensure that the people of Britain can own French energy companies just as French people can own British energy companies?
My hon. Friend makes two important points. The Bill has passed with large majorities, including large numbers of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the small band of brothers that he was with in the House of Commons, but I assure him that if he looks at the House of Lords voting lists he will find a far larger number of brothers and sisters who supported him on that—[Interruption.] No, far more than eight, hon. Members will find.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a common energy policy is one way to address both the economics of the energy industry and the politics of the relationship with Russia and other energy suppliers. That is actively being worked on, and I hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will soon be able to report progress on the energy issues.
Can the Foreign Secretary not see that if he wishes to build a bridge between the peoples of Europe and the political elite, this country must stop ratifying this dead treaty, and the Irish Government, instead of trying to find a fiddle to overcome and get round the result, should resign because they lost their main recommendation and they no longer speak for the Irish people?
It is a welcome change when the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Government of Ireland to resign, rather than the British Government. I will take that as a large vote of confidence in how we are handling the issue.
We know the right hon. Gentleman’s view. His view was that the 1997 Amsterdam treaty meant the abolition of Britain. As far as I can see, Britain is alive and kicking, contrary to his assertions. It would do nothing for British democracy if an Irish vote meant that this Parliament did not carry on with its workings. Surely we should be defending the right of this Parliament to make its own decisions.
My right hon. Friend has stated that the development of a two-tier Europe would be the wrong response to the events of the last few days. Will he give a commitment to the House today that he will stand firm against any attempt by any other member country to force such a solution to the current situation?
As I said, I do not think that a two-tier Europe is the right way forward, and of course I will argue firmly for that. While the debate about a two-tier Europe was lively in the early 1990s, in a world where Ireland is in the euro but Britain is not but is a leading participant in European security and defence policy, the idea that there are two divisions in Europe simply does not add up. Many other issues show that the idea of a two-speed or three-speed Europe does not address the modern need. I am happy to have my hon. Friend’s support in that argument.
Will the Foreign Secretary accept that his statement is really quite disreputable given that this is quite clearly a democratic vote taken by people with full knowledge of what was going on? Will he not accept that it does affect the United Kingdom? We salute the Irish people, but the vote affects the United Kingdom because the treaty is no longer valid as far as the United Kingdom is concerned precisely because it has been overtaken by the no vote, which cannot now be changed.
At no stage have I cast any aspersions on the decision of the Irish people in this matter. There is nothing disreputable about reporting what the Irish Government have themselves committed to, which is to think about what they want to do next and then report back to future European Councils. I hope that on further reflection, despite the fact that we disagree on the issue, the hon. Gentleman might reconsider whether that is the most appropriate argument to make.
Mere words cannot convey my feelings on this matter. May I start by congratulating the Minister for Europe? He is following in the footsteps of the Secretary of State for International Development, who, as Minister for Europe, managed to persuade the French and the Dutch to kill off the constitution. The current Minister for Europe has managed to persuade the Irish to kill off the treaty.
Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not an Irish problem to be solved by the Irish, that this is an EU problem to be solved by all the countries of Europe, that the treaty is now a dead parrot and that he will not accept any urgings from colleagues in this or any part of the House that try to bully the Irish by suggesting that we should move forward with or without them?
My hon. Friend is the friend of the Minister for Europe, who whispered to me, as our hon. Friend got to his feet, that he is in helpful mode on this issue. I am glad that we have not encountered him in unhelpful mode today.
He is just the same.
No, I detect a difference; I do not agree.
I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) that there is no room for bulldozing in this. I do not think it is right to describe it as an “Irish” problem. On that I agree with him. This is, though, an issue on which the Irish Government have said that they want to take a view about their next step. It seems to me right that we respect that. Equally, it is right that we address our own view of the issue because Britain should not leave itself in limbo as the only country in Europe without a view on the treaty, not least given the fact that the Bill has been through all its stages in both Houses and is awaiting Third Reading in the Lords.
I offer my hearty congratulations to all the voters of Ireland in the referendum. At least they had a choice in a referendum, something that Scotland’s voters were denied by a UK Government. That shows the clear benefit of independence in Europe. Will the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister tell their EU colleagues that the only way to build trust in the EU and its institutions is to move at a speed and in a direction that European citizens are happy with?
It is precisely to ensure that the speed and the direction are ones that European citizens and representatives are happy with that the Lisbon treaty was created and then proposed. I completely disagree that, somehow, the citizens of Scotland would have more power or more say, never mind more security or prosperity, if they were outside the UK, but that is a longer debate that will happen on many other occasions.
Is not the essential point that the Irish decision deserves full respect, but the decision to ratify of 18 other member states with a total population of well over 200 million equally deserves full respect? Is it not the case that we all have our right to represent our views on this subject and to make our decision? We should therefore continue the ratification process. When it is brought to an end, we should all meet together to see how any differences that emerge can best be reconciled and resolved.
Yes. My hon. Friend speaks with the benefit of consistency on European issues, which cannot be said of all those on the other side of the House.
The Foreign Secretary demonstrates an almost Eurocratic arrogance in suggesting that the Irish Government should be allowed time to consider their position when it is the Council of Ministers that ought to be considering its position. Will he respond to the clear point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague): following the French and Dutch votes, the British Foreign Secretary said it was no longer possible to ratify the constitution, so why is the British Foreign Secretary now saying, in precisely the same terms, that in the light of the Irish no vote it is possible to ratify the treaty?
I could not have been clearer: without the support of all 27 countries, this treaty will not come into force. That was said again and again and again. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the situation after the 2005 referendums, he will know that in the House, never mind anywhere else, the treaty was only just beginning its passage. It was certainly not the case that two thirds of the countries had passed the treaty into law; they certainly had not.
The hon. Gentleman will know that precedent plays both ways on this. The precedent in respect of Nice shows that the Governments around Europe went forward with ratification. In respect of Maastricht, Sir John Major came to this Dispatch Box and committed his Government to continue with the passage of the Maastricht treaty, but did so after an interval of four or five months. The truth is that precedent plays in both directions and each side can take succour from those precedents.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that made Europe work, and that made it attractive to many of the new countries that have sought to join, is that the larger countries do not steamroll them on constitutional matters. Should we not therefore await a decision of the Irish Government before rushing to judgment? Otherwise, we are simply interfering in the constitution of another country and playing into the hands of those who say that Europe is giving away sovereignty.
In respect of constitutional matters, we are in a Union of equals, in which each country has an equal say. That is right and I defend it. I do not support majority voting on constitutional matters of this kind; it is right that unanimity is required. It is therefore important that we respect the vote in Ireland and give the Irish Government a chance to decide on their next step.
The Foreign Secretary wants a British view on the treaty. May I refer him to the latest ICM poll, which showed that two thirds of British people are against the treaty? Does he not see that it would be improper to send the treaty’s ratification for Royal Assent as the treaty is now unlawful? The treaty is not pining for the fjords; it is simply dead.
The treaty might not come into effect, but that does not mean it is unlawful for the British Parliament to exercise its view. I defend the right of this Parliament to do things that are popular or unpopular—sometimes they might be unpopular, but that does not mean they are wrong.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my fellow Europeans. So passionate and vehement were the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary that for a moment I allowed myself to toy with the idea that another by-election might be in the offing. May I tell my right hon. Friend that I read with great sadness in the Polish press this weekend—in translation, obviously—that the referendum result is seen not just as a triumph for Sinn Fein but as a reversion to the old architecture and a victory for the Franco-German axis, taking us back to pre-enlargement days? Does he have any message of hope for those Poles whom we welcomed to our EU?
The message to the Poles—[Interruption.] I hear a sedentary intervention to the effect that my hon. Friend would be better at providing the answer, as well as the question. I am sure that that is right. The message to our fellow European Polish citizens is that the European Union is stronger for being enlarged. The procedures need to be updated, and they should keep faith with their vote to join the European Union in the first place.
When the Foreign Secretary was young, this House passed devolution in Wales, which was rejected four to one by the Welsh people. At least when it was offered again 20 years later, they had another vote. If the other countries of Europe were allowed a vote, in how many of the 27 does he think the treaty would pass a referendum?
I think I am right in saying that nine countries decided that although the constitution merited a referendum, the Lisbon treaty did not because it was an amending treaty. That is right. We should defend our parliamentary system. The Irish case is different, as the Irish have a written constitution with a specific requirement for referendums on all constitutional changes. Different parts of Europe have different democratic systems, and we should stick to our own.
May I express my wholehearted welcome for the Irish decision and congratulate the Irish people on having spoken on behalf of millions of other Europeans who have not had the choice? There has been much talk of the emergence of a multi-speed Europe. Is my right hon. Friend interested in the weekend reports stating that differential inflation rates—and therefore a multi-speed Europe—are beginning to emerge even inside the eurozone? That might lead eventually to the eurozone fraying at the edges, particularly at the Italian edge, which has serious problems at the moment.
If I thought, as my hon. Friend does, that the Irish rejection brought closer the day of the socialist commonwealth perhaps I would take a different attitude, but I fear it does not bring that day closer. In respect of diversity within the eurozone, I would need to check the figures, either with the Treasury or the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I think I am right to say, however, that there have been differential inflation rates within the eurozone since its creation 10 years ago. I do not have data—certainly not to hand—showing that the inflation differential has grown in the past 10 years. In fact, some of the reports marking the 10th anniversary of the creation of the euro suggested the opposite. However, I am happy to look into the matter and work on it with my hon. Friend.
rose—
Order. If I am to call everyone who seeks to catch my eye, I renew my appeal to hon. Members for brevity.
Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that any change in the treaty to take account of the views and concerns of the Irish would involve ratification happening again in all the other 26 countries? Does not the act of proceeding with ratification in this country therefore show clear contempt for the Irish people and the Irish Government?
I was about to agree with the hon. Gentleman—he and I started our parliamentary careers together—and then he spoiled it with his ridiculous last 10 words. If there is a new treaty, it would have to come back to all the Parliaments that have passed the current one. My view is that no one in Europe should embrace renegotiation. I was interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who sat on the Convention, that he wanted to reopen the Convention—that would not be a good thing. If there is a new treaty, it must come back to all the Parliaments to be ratified.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the vast majority of the British public will be delighted at the result of the Irish referendum—the referendum that they did not get? Will he answer simply the question that the public want answered? If when the Dutch and the French voted against the constitution they were not told to go back and think again—the whole thing was withdrawn—why is a country such as Ireland being told to go back and think again? Why has the whole thing not been withdrawn, with our saying, as the then Foreign Secretary said the first time round, “The treaty is dead. End of story.”
The Irish are not being told anything. They are telling us that they want time to decide on their next move, and we are saying that that is a reasonable thing for them to do. They are not being commanded, bullied or persuaded to do anything against their will. It is for the Irish Government to make their own decision about the Irish national interest. I do not think there is any danger in giving them the time to do that. There is certainly no danger that somehow, during that time, the equation will change so that we do not need 27 countries to ratify. We will need 27 countries to ratify the Lisbon treaty. As I said in respect of the 2005 referendums, there are precedents on all sides, whether we look at Maastricht, Nice or the 2005 issue.
Does the Foreign Secretary realise that his statement, and those of other political leaders on the continent of Europe, reveals a contempt for the views of the people—a contempt shown by his Government in refusing to give the promised referendum on the treaty, and a contempt shown for the French people, the Dutch people and now the Irish people—and that that contempt and arrogance are leading to a growing disillusionment and disenchantment with the European Union across the European continent, which do actually do some good?
No. There is no more contempt or arrogance in our positions than in the hon. Gentleman’s decision to oppose a referendum on the Maastricht treaty 15 years ago.
It is good to hear that my right hon. Friend will be helpful to the Irish Government. With that in mind, will he make an offer to hold any rerun of the referendum in the United Kingdom? That would be a magnificent gesture, and I am sure that the Irish people would support him in it.
No. I think that, as Parliament has voted against a referendum on two occasions in this House and in the other place, that would not be a wise thing to do.
As a still unrepentant supporter of the treaty, I must nevertheless recognise that if it is not a dead duck it is an extraordinarily badly shot-up duck at present. However, does the Foreign Secretary accept that this need not be a crisis in Europe, and Europe need not descend into constitutional turmoil? There is a huge amount of business to get on with, which will not wait while we indulge in constitutional musings. Is this not a wonderful opportunity for President Sarkozy to achieve a spectacular success, and become even more famous than his wife?
I am not sure whether politics is a route to greater fame than fashion and song, never mind other pursuits. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the rejection of the treaty in the referendum is a blow to reform of the European Union. We must wait to see the Irish view before the next steps can be taken.
Just a few answers ago, the Foreign Secretary said that renegotiation was not an option. If that is true, in reality the treaty is dead, and if that is the case why on earth is the House of Lords debating the Bill’s Third Reading on Wednesday?
I repeat that I do not support renegotiation, I do not support a two-tier Europe, and I do not support the new Convention that is being proposed. That does not seem to me to negate the fact that, 95 per cent. of the way through the process, it is right for us to complete the passage of the legislation so that the British Parliament can express a clear view that we can take into European discussions. That has been urged on us throughout Europe, and the Irish have made it clear that they would respect countries that took such action.
All true democrats in the House will wish to join me in congratulating my old friend Declan Ganley on his inspired leadership of the no campaign in Ireland. The Secretary of State has an opportunity to display his own leadership skills, which may be called on by his party sooner rather than later, by leading us out of this mess. It is not up to the Irish, who have voted no, to reflect; it is up to the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers in Europe to articulate a way forward, but before they do so they must acknowledge that the treaty is now dead.
The hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the Irish responsibility, and about the freedom of the Irish to decide their next move. We also disagree about our position. I am clear about the fact that we should pass the treaty; I am also clear about the fact that if it is not passed everywhere else, it will not come into force.
Is not the Foreign Secretary rather like the shopkeeper in the Monty Python sketch? He is trying to persuade people that the parrot is not dead, but is not the truth of the matter that the Lisbon treaty has expired, is deceased, has gone to its maker, and is—actually—dead?
I do not think that I am a shopkeeper who has missed his vocation, but we shall see, on the basis of the discussions that take place.
Will the Foreign Secretary condemn all the Members of the European Parliament who are refusing to respect the verdict of the Irish people?
Anyone who refuses to respect the decision of the Irish people is obviously not doing justice by the systems that exist. I have not seen the quotations to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am happy to look at them.
Does the Foreign Secretary think that the British people feel any more warmly towards the Lisbon treaty than the Irish did last Thursday?
I only wish that 80 per cent. of the British people—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has been giving a running commentary on the whole exercise. Much as I like the sound of his voice, I do not think I like it as much as he does. Perhaps he could give us a break for a while.
I wish that 80 per cent. of the British people agreed in the same way the Irish do that the European Union is a good thing, but sadly we cannot hope for quite such dizzy heights in this country.
The Foreign Secretary rightly said at the outset that he did not want to bully the Irish people, but surely pursuing the ratification process in this country while working with the French and Germans to ensure that other countries ratify the treaty constitutes subtle playground bullying tactics, intended to ostracise Ireland and try to persuade it to think again.
The hon. Gentleman underestimates the Irish people if he thinks that talking to the French and Germans—as if that were some kind of sin in the European Union—will bully them into anything. However, I can tell him one thing that will make him happy: I had an excellent discussion with the Polish Foreign Minister today about the plans for each of our countries. The hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate for the presence of Poles in this country and Polish participation in the European Union, and I can assure him that the Polish Foreign Minister and I were absolutely agreed on the next steps forward.
What does the Foreign Secretary think about the fact that Britain and its European allies are actively preaching the importance of the rule of law to various parts of the world, yet when it comes to the Lisbon treaty, Britain and those same European allies are actively conspiring to circumvent the rule of law?
There is no circumvention, active or otherwise. There is no question of anyone trying to take away the democratic rights of the people of Ireland. If they do not pass the treaty, the treaty will not come into law. Nothing could be clearer than that. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has waited all this time to ask a question that I have already answered at least a dozen times during this question-and-answer session.