The European Journal

Bill Cash MP speaks out against EU financial regulation proposals

Yesterday evening, in the debate on the European financial services proposals, Bill Cash MP spoke out against the regulations, as he rejected proposals for establishing a European Systemic Risk Board, a European Banking Authority, a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, a European Securities and Markets Authority, with all their respective powers, and the regulation on Community macro-prudential oversight of the financial system, and furthermore, rejected the Government’s approach “to setting up a new financial supervisory structure in the EU.”

Cash said: “The United Kingdom will no longer be able to insist upon retaining its own control over financial services and banking in the City of London and across the country. The Westminster Parliament will be obliged to accept the legislation which includes the overarching legal architecture and final jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The French, the Germans and President Barroso have achieved their objectives while Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have sold the United Kingdom down the river.”

During the debate, Bill Cash made the following interventions:

Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): As I am a member of the ESC, I am sure the Minister will understand my wishing to draw attention to the fact that in our most recent report we have, effectively, condemned the idea that we should rush forward with these proposals. There are many good reasons for that, which are set out in our report. Furthermore, does the Minister accept the following point, which I have repeatedly made to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer-this is, effectively, a sell-out to the process of majority voting, and it will do immense damage to the City of London, which accounts for an enormous percentage of our GDP? Does she also agree that there is no justification for the speed with which this is being done, or for handing over the whole of this ramshackle structure to the European Court of Justice?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with him on this and that I think it is important that we have a European harmonisation of regulation. That was agreed at not only the European level, but the global level. I think we would all agree that we are looking for a harmonisation of regulation at a global level, and the EU process can move forward on that.

…

Mr. Cash: The Minister speaks about red lines. Will she exercise a veto when the whole matter is going to be decided by a majority vote?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: This is a package of five legislative proposals. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that four of them are down to qualified majority voting, but one of the items in the package is subject to unanimity. We are going into the negotiations with our red lines and I am sure that the Chancellor will stick to them. Within the negotiations, I am sure that we will get not only what is good for the UK, but what is good for the EU.

…

Mr. Cash: Does the Minister note that one of the questions that we put was whether, in the context of the architecture to which I referred earlier, the Government are satisfied not only with regard to the voting issue, but with regard to the relationship of the European Court of Justice to these bodies? That is crucial, because it is at that point that the question of the exercise of real power is determined. Can the Minister answer that question, please?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman back to my previous answer, which was that we have concerns about the legislative proposals, where the Commission appears to be taking over the role of the courts, because the judgment as to whether member states are following European law must be a matter for the European courts. We are putting in place a new framework to improve the quality and consistency of supervision and regulation. Such a framework will better protect consumers, help prevent financial crisis and improve efficiency for firms. I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. Members in the debate. 4.49 pm

…

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend knows that I have the gravest concerns about all this. Does he appreciate that although the trade associations-I mentioned the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association and the Investment Management Association -have effectively endorsed the idea of this supranational authority, there is also a political dimension, because whereas they may have a multinational view about these matters in the global context, in terms of the City of London a political judgment has to be struck? That is why I personally take the view that we ought to resist this all the way down the line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, people in the trade associations take a globalised view based on multinationalism, whereas when one deals with people in individual firms on the ground, one finds that they frequently take a very different view. Does my hon. Friend have any comment to make on that?

Mr. Hoban: My experience in this role over the past four years is that there is a wide divergence of views in the City about the role that Europe should play in the regulation of financial services. Several trade associations take the view that there should be a harmonised rule book, for example, but they are also concerned about the pace at which the reforms are progressing and whether a proper process is in place. We have seen that in the way in which the alternative investment fund managers directive has been dealt with. The devil is always in the detail. We need proper scrutiny of these proposals, and people need carefully to think through their impact. The problem is that when others seek to use their political agenda to shape regulation in Europe, it is sometimes to the detriment of our own sector based here in London.

 …

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point relating to competing sovereignties. The European Court asserts its primacy over not only our laws but our constitution. I am glad to say that the leader of our party has affirmed that there will be a sovereignty Bill to deal with some of those questions. Does my hon. Friend agree that where there are such competing sovereignties, and it is in our national interests to do so, as it is in the case before us, it is essential that, if we come to power, we justify and carry through the leader of our party's commitment to the repatriation of legislation to ensure our economic competitiveness, using our sovereignty Bill?

Mr. Hoban: I suspect that my hon. Friend is pushing me to go further than I am inclined to go at this point, but I want to explore the legal argument, because there is an issue to do with the basis of the powers. I know that he is an expert on the subject, so he may want to contribute to the debate on that point later….

…

Mr. Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis, but the danger is that, because of mission creep, there will be increasing control-the practitioners instinctively feel that that is coming. Those who are promoting this whole superstructure, including the Government and Lord Myners himself, would hand over the City of London, lock, stock and barrel to a supervisory authority that will insist that it has its way. That is the problem and it is completely contrary to proper market conditions. That is where the problem lies for the City, and it will end up in competition with New York instead of working across the Atlantic as we should do.

Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point about mission creep when it comes to these authorities, and he has been very critical of trade associations so far. However, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe has identified that as a potential issue. It is concerned that ESAs will go beyond technical issues and stray into policy. …

…

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally crass for the Government to hand over the running of financial services to the EU, and then to saddle themselves with the responsibility for bailing people out when things go wrong? How stupid can you get?

Mr. Browne: I am not aware that anyone in this debate has proposed that course of action-

Mr. Cash: It is what this is all about.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that that is what this motion is all about, but the nub of the debate is whether that is the case. I shall deal with that in a moment, but we all acknowledge that these enormous financial institutions have tentacles that reach into many different markets. That is why it is appropriate for us to ask ourselves whether the regulatory regime that monitors them should have a similar scope, and a dimension to its activities that reflects the scale and nature of the organisations being regulated. Because we have the most advanced financial services sector in Europe and are the dominant players in the market, the proposals before us today could have some benefits for the UK. A market whose general regulation applies the same rules to all European countries could present opportunities for us to achieve greater profitability and wider expansion, as long as there is no improper restriction of our financial services sector. That is important, because regulation must not restrict legitimate competition….

…

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman betrays a remarkable lack of knowledge about the extent to which the French in particular and the Germans, who are also going for the European bank, have set their hearts, minds and political will on doing as much as possible to ensure that the City of London does not survive as the main centre in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is completely and totally off the wall.

Mr. Browne: I do not know if I am grateful for that intervention. When I spoke about paranoia about the European Union, I did not necessarily have the hon. Gentleman in mind, although he may have identified with that feeling. There are many good reasons why London should be the financial services capital of Europe, as it offers entrepreneurial dynamism and labour market flexibility, and the fact that we speak English helps….

…

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Commission, being the ultimate bureaucratic executive and the responsible body-these regulations are about regulatory arrangements and are the highest of legal instruments that must be implemented by member states-is acting in a manner that will inevitably lead to a non-competitive environment, because the Commission itself is basically undemocratic? It is bureaucratic, and all the fears that my hon. Friend has expressed will come about because of the failure of the culture within the European Union to understand that that is the basis on which the Commission operates, and it should not be allowed to do so. The Government are seriously in error and should be condemned for allowing such a situation to come about.

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend makes his point, again, extremely powerfully….

…

The House having divided: Ayes 256, Noes 188.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091201/debtext/91201-0012.htm

Bill Cash MP calls for "full referendum" – and welcomes David Cameron reasserting primacy of Westminster legislation over European Communities Act

Bill Cash still insists that we must a full referendum on the European question because the British people have been denied one since 1975 and a referendum is needed in order to secure a vote to ensure that the democratic wishes of the electorate are the basis on which we are governed – as he said in his press statement of Monday 2nd November.

However, Bill Cash is extremely glad to hear that David Cameron has effectively endorsed his continuing campaign for many years to reassert in the national interest the primacy of Westminster legislation in principle over the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore the Lisbon Treaty, which consolidates all the Treaties.

The European Communities Act was a voluntary Act passed by Parliament and does not and must not be allowed to usurp the sovereignty and supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament on which the democratic wishes of the British electorate are founded. Where under existing European law, such as the Social Chapter, the overregulation of business and the City of London, the areas of immigration, fisheries and the Common Agricultural Policy and in other areas of European policy-making, the European system of Government undermines vital British national interests.

This new statement by David Cameron would open the door to effective renegotiation despite majority voting and unanimity where our vital national interests were concerned. This is a major step forward in an association of member states, for which Bill Cash has campaigned for the last decade and more.

Bill Cash MP urges referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in any event

Bill Cash MP today insisted that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was absolutely necessary:

“A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was promised by the Labour Government. Whatever weasel words have been used to suggest otherwise, the Lisbon treaty combines all the Treaties and therefore is about all the Treaties since 1972 but has been pushed through with bullying of smaller states and the breaking of promises in a monumental cascade of deceit.

“As David Cameron has said, we need an association of member states. In order to achieve this, we cannot simply cherry-pick individual aspects of the treaty and call for renegotiation of those. We need a full referendum on Lisbon as we were promised and as we voted in the House of Commons. No ifs or buts. This is about the Government of the United Kingdom operating in line with the democratic wishes of the electorate.

“Future referendums will be ruled out with the arrangements in the treaty which allow amendment of treaties by internal self-amending text, and with a massive transfer of powers under the system of co-decision.

“The British people were lied to when they were told this was no more than tinkering with the existing European arrangements and just ironing out a few problems. We can see from the furore over Tony Blair’s apparently failed bid for President and David Miliband’s plan to take the glittering prize of a failed European foreign policy just how far and how deep the ambitions of the Euro-fanatics are against the background of failure of the European Union, politically and economically. They are hell-bent on enlargement with other countries which cannot be possibly be admitted.

“The common immigration policy, as I pointed out in the House of Commons, would do nothing to stop the millions of illegal immigrants already in Europe, not to mention those in the United Kingdom.

“The Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy are an unmitigated failure and have cost the taxpayer in efficiency and fraud whilst damaging the less well off in the third world. There is nothing to be said for this obsolete and failed system which needs to be radically reformed and we need to return democracy to this country as well as other Member States.

“As David Cameron and William Hague have repeatedly indicated, the EU is over-centralised and undemocratic and we need it to be radically reformed into a democratic association of member states. This can only be done with Britain taking a firm lead over this gerrymandered treaty, returning democratic power to the people.

“Accompanying this, we mist insist on the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament where necessary over the European Union and oblige our judiciary to give effect to Westminster enactments based on the wishes of our electorate. It is important to remember that Lord Randolph Churchill said ‘Trust the people’ and John Bright said we had the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’. We need radical reform, but so does the European Union. Winston Churchill said we should be ‘associated, not absorbed’ with the European Union. It is clear that we now need a relationship which is worthy of the twenty-first century.”

Bill Cash MP responds to Lord Heseltine’s comments

In response to a former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Heseltine, reportedly telling a private meeting that Mr Cameron's strongly Eurosceptic stance was damaging to British interests, Bill Cash MP said:

“Mr. Heseltine has been out of step with the Conservative Party for a very long time with his actions and his statements on this issue.

“It is the Europhile Establishment in the United Kingdom who are both extremist and in the minority. Few right-minded people in this country support the federalist objectives of the current Government. This is what will damage Britain’s interests.

“David Cameron is right to call for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and giving people a say on this important issue would revive Britain’s national interests – not damage it. Furthermore, we must have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty in any event.

“I believe that the leadership’s decision to form a new reformist group with other like-minded parties in the European Parliament is the right approach but bearing in mind we need to reassert the supremacy of our Parliament in relation to European matters.”

Bill Cash MP slams new EU deal for British dairy farmers

As farmers protested outside talks in Luxembourg against low milk prices and plummeting incomes, Bill Cash MP said: “Given the historic failure of European Union interference and subsidies in agricultural markets, I am hardly surprised that the EU Agriculture Commissioner wants to doll out £250 million in next year's EU budget to prop up the dairy sector. It is a sham. It is not in the interests of the UK dairy sector as a whole or local dairy farmers across Staffordshire.”

“This new top-up simply means that Brussels wants to continue the old regime of subsidies, which is not in anyone’s interest in the United Kingdom.”

It follows Mr. Cash’s earlier meeting in Slindon with dairy farmers from across Staffordhire, when he wrote to the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Hilary Benn, providing specific supply margin data which demonstrates the real challenges created for dairy producers.

Cash said: “The impact of the existing system is far reaching across the Staffordshire rural economy and is increasingly unsustainable for many businesses.

Before the parliamentary recess, Cash had put down an Early Day Motion (EDM 1724) calling for the Government to address the serious problems faced by the UK dairy industry. The EDM reads:

“That this House notes the severe problems facing the UK dairy industry; is dismayed by the collapse of the co-operative, Dairy Farmers of Britain; and urges the Government to support those numerous producers affected, whilst also requesting urgent action to be taken in tightening up EU and UK labelling requirements on all products of animal origin including dairy products, particularly cheese, so that misleading labelling is stamped out and that consumers can make informed choices about the dairy products they buy, and can clearly identify the country in which the animal was reared, and raw material produced and processed.”

Referendum plea

Bill Cash in the Times writes: "The “Yes” vote in Ireland increases the need for a referendum for the UK itself, for Europe as a whole and for our democracy. The Lisbon treaty is a fundamental constitutional change in the relationship of the UK to the EU and the other member states. The case for a UK referendum is based on this fundamental constitutional principle. David Cameron acknowledges this, as did the Conservative vote for a referendum on the treaty in the Commons and the 50 Conservative MPs who backed my motion for a referendum “in any event”.

"The granting of a referendum does not depend on the Irish or any other vote. The political obligation is aggravated by the disgraceful overriding of the original French, Dutch and Irish “No” votes — made worse by the manner in which the “Yes” vote was obtained in Ireland, with massive propaganda from the European Commission and ten times more expenditure by the “Yes” side than the “No” side. The Czechs and the Poles have still not ratified Lisbon but, more to the point, the UK ratification itself, in clear breach of Labour’s manifesto promise, is undemocratic and fatally flawed. It must be overridden by a referendum endorsed by an Act of Parliament and on our own terms."

Bill Cash MP says Gael poll demonstrates the support for a No vote and the “strength of Ireland’s national democracy”

In response to the Gael Poll showing that the Lisbon Treaty would be heavily defeated in the second Irish referendum on 2nd October by a margin of 59% No to 41% Yes, the Chairman of the European Foundation, Bill Cash MP said:

“I welcome the new opinion poll which shows there is overwhelming support amongst the Irish people to kill of this treaty once and for all. “It is important that this Gael Poll polled 1,500 respondents drawn from several populations – in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kilkenny, Galway, Athlone, Tralee, Dundalk and Letterkenny – over a period of six days last week.”

“They have all been asked one single and impartial question – How do you intend to vote in the Lisbon Treaty Referendum? When you discount the ‘don’t knows’, the overwhelming majority of people would vote No in the referendum and a minority of 41% would vote Yes.

“This poll is accurate and historic because we know from the last Gael Poll, published in the Irish Sun on June 4th 2008 that the poll accurately predicted that the Lisbon Treaty would be defeated by a margin of 54% for the No side versus 46% for Yes campaigners, with the actual results accurately reflecting that poll, 53.4% saying No and 46.6% saying Yes. This has been the most accurate poll in the country.

“It goes to show that the real winner in Ireland’s second vote will be democracy. The poll shows that despite all the EU propaganda that has been brought on to the streets and pasted on the billboards, Ireland is still heading for a No vote. It signals the real strength of Ireland’s national democracy.

“There is of course immense support in the United Kingdom for a No vote in Ireland’s second referendum. The last UK poll showed that 88% of British people wanted a referendum. In fact, the next UK Government will take major steps after Ireland’s vote. If there is a No vote in Ireland, as 59% of Irish people insist, there will be no overall ratification of the treaty by all the EU member states.

“After an Irish No vote, the UK’s Conservative Party commitment to a referendum on the treaty would create obvious pressures for the British people to have one also. While the UK has already ratified, a Conservative government would unravel this undemocratic treaty by easily winning a No vote in a UK referendum, and withdrawing the UK’s ratification. The treaty will be dead."

Bill Cash: Hidden costs of selling out to a failed EU is hitting Britain hard

Bill Cash in the Yorkshire Post writes: "ALTHOUGH I was appalled and astonished to hear that Treasury figures indicate that the cost of Britain's membership in the European Union have risen from £53 per UK household in 2004 to £260 from next year, the real truth is that the costs to the UK are much higher.

"They certainly outweigh any benefits. The real cost of EU membership for British taxpayers is 10 times higher – costing every person in the United Kingdom about £2,000 per year, according to the TaxPayers' Alliance. That is before we can even begin to assess the predicted 60 per cent rise next year.

"Every British voter pays, in food prices, consumer goods or services, a minimum of £2,000 per year – which makes the Treasury's £260 estimated cost of EU membership sound as pie in the sky as every other Government statistic that I have read recently.

"Do the Treasury figures, for example, include in their assessment the financial costs of damage done to small businesses every year by business regulation?

"The British electorate has been paying – as taxpayers – for our direct contributions to the EU.

"It has also been paying – as consumers – for the high prices and costs endured by UK business in complying with and administering EU regulations, EU administration costs and also higher food prices, which have resulted from implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. The great European con-trick has to end.

"So, I see great political opportunity for the Labour Government. Given that on the Government's own terms EU membership costs will now rise from £4.1bn to £6.4bn next year, equating to a rise of almost 60 per cent, they should now come clean.

"The Cabinet must sit down at the table with the Treasury report on its agenda and say – we do not want to be part of this failed, uneconomic debt-ridden European political body, which has, with the passing of each European Treaty, taken almost complete legislative control over Westminster. Instead, we want a new deal.

"Of course, that is dependent on whether the Conservative Party decides to step up to the mark.

"It is a time for a new deal, beginning with a referendum which would first lead to the withdrawal of the instruments of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

"In light of the Treasury's figures, coupled with attempts by the European Commission to force a re-run of the Irish referendum – on October 2 (through active meddling and propaganda), along with the false claims made by the Foreign Office, via Baroness Kinnock, that the Irish already have "legal guarantees" guaranteed by the UK Parliament – then there is good reason for renegotiation of the Treaties and our EU relationship.

"As I have written many times previously, a referendum is required on the Government's own terms, because the Treaty itself is a "merger" involving all the main European Treaties (from Rome to Nice) to create a Union with an over-arching single legal personality and a self-amending text.

"This always amounted to "substantial constitutional change", even "fundamental change" – so, on the Government's own political and legal terms, and now based on the Government's own financial assessment, it is compelled to re-examine our European relationship and seek a referendum in line with the wishes of the British electorate.

"A statement issued by a spokesman for the Treasury on the news that a 60 per cent increase in the costs of EU membership had been fully and openly discussed in Parliament, was simply wrong and false on every count. We had not discussed this in Parliament.

"In the Treasury statement, the Prime Minister also supposedly insists that it is right for us to share the burden of membership of the European Union with the new accession countries, but Gordon Brown must surely realise the European Union is a failed economic and political bloc.

"Britain and most of the member states have continued to burden themselves with deep problems of the new accession and pre-accession countries, without realising the consequences – as I said in the House of Commons, on June 16 – by supporting illiberal régimes in Croatia, Albania, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo, Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia.

"Why should Britain pay more than £10bn in huge pre-accession fees before joining, and then massive uncountable subsidies once they are in, in order to support Eastern Europe's trade in cocaine and the sex trafficking of children and prostitutes?

"It is a scandal, but the national newspapers hardly mention it. It helps to explain the Treasury figures.

"Gordon Brown has sold out the country in the exceedingly short time he has been Prime Minister, so it will fall to a Conservative Government to deliver a new deal."

Bill Cash MP says Treasury’s cost of EU membership point to “a new deal”

Following the Treasury announcement on the cost of EU membership, the leading Eurosceptic MP in the House of Commons, Bill Cash MP said:

“I expect that although the appalling Treasury figures now say that the cost of being in the European Union has risen from £53 per UK household in 2004 to £260 from next year, the truth is that the costs are much higher.

“Do the Treasury figures, for example include in their assessment the financial costs of damage done to small businesses every year by business regulation? I would be very surprised if they did.

“However, given that on the Government’s own terms, EU membership costs will now rise to £6.4bn from £4.1bn next year, equating to a rise of almost 60 per cent, should they now come clean. Now is the time to sit down at the Treasury and say – we do not want to be part of this failed, uneconomic debt-ridden European political body, which has now taken almost complete legislative control over Westminster and instead, we want a new deal.”

“It is a time for a new deal, beginning with the withdrawal of the instruments of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and ending with a Europe consisting of a democratic association of nation states, far removed from our existing binds within the European superstate.”

“Following the statement by a spokesman for the Treasury that the increase had been fully and openly discussed in Parliament, that is simply wrong.

"As for the Prime Minister insisting that it is right for us to share the burden of membership of the European Union with the new accession countries, I believe he is as alone in making that decision as he is with every decision he has made in recent months."

The Great Lisbon Denial: deceit prevents re-ratification

Here, we report the exchanges between Bill Cash and the Foreign Secretary and other parliamentarians in the European Scrutiny Committee debate on 2 July, which considered the legal “guarantees” for Ireland in relation to the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Cash: Only because you mentioned the fact that I was shaking my head, Foreign Secretary, could I simply say that I have been in favour of enlargement of a European Community that would actually work. The problem is that, for a variety of reasons – and I do not have time to go into them today – and as I have argued in Standing Committees and on the floor of the House for decades, I just do not believe that the model that is currently on offer is going to work, and I think there is plenty of evidence of that. My concern is that we should have an association of nation states cooperating in trade and also politically but not European government. We may differ about what that word means but I would simply like to put on record the fact that there is nothing negative about my view. I do not think it is anti-European to be pro democracy, and I do think it is extremely unwise to bring in countries which, I am afraid to say, however much we may want to respect them, have a record of a lack of democracy and, as my hon friend here was saying in terms of human trafficking, cocaine trade, et cetera, will weaken any political cooperation in Europe rather than the other way round. That is the problem. You are bringing upon the United Kingdom, in my opinion, a system which is liable to and will implode.

Chairman: I think that is one of these “Do you agree with me?” questions but I would ask you to limit your answer.

David Miliband: Can I say seriously that I actually respect Bill Cash for the way that he has prosecuted his view over the last decades, as he says, on this issue. To be fair to him, he has been very consistent about that. I think, decades on from when the argument started, there are some facts that we can bring to bear about this. We can point to former dictatorships which are actually now thriving democracies and the strength of their democracy I think is in part explained by the way they have engaged in the European Union. So it is a good argument, it is one where Mr Cash has a very consistent position, but I do think, the point of what I said before, that I am in a stronger position to make my case now because of some enlargement that has happened. Mr Cash thinks he is in a stronger position because he thinks he can point to the negative aspects and that is politics in a way but we do have a different view of that. I think when he looks at the record he may want to think whether or not he does want to refer to former dictatorships in the way that he did because, the Spains, the Portugals, the Greeces of this world are easy to dismiss in that sort of formulation, and those were countries which were until very recently dictatorships and now they are very strong democracies. In Eastern Europe – I was in Poland last week – people still talk in civil society and in politics about Poland as a recently captive nation. That is the phrase that is used, and it can bring you up short in a way because, in a 24-hour media world, one is taught to believe that anything more than five years ago is ancient history but actually 1989 is not that long ago; 1991 and the crushing of Solidarity by General Jaruzelski is not that long ago and those are former dictatorships, in the phrase you have used.

Mr Cash: But now we have the rise of the far right, as I predicted 15 years ago. That is part of the problem. Perhaps we have to leave it at that.

. . . .

Chairman: Knowing you as I do, Secretary of State, I am sure you will have prepared meticulously for both sections of the business and will not be surprised by anything we do ask you. Clearly, as I said when you interrupted me with your glowing smile, we do have very warm feelings towards our Irish colleagues and do understand the context in which people hold referenda which are not always asked about the questions of relevance to the country. There are often other things that are put forward but clearly, in the case of Ireland, there have been some deeply embedded concerns with the Lisbon Treaty as it stands, and they have sought to get some reassurance that, if they go to a further referendum, the concerns will be placated, because we as a Committee have some concerns that what is being touted around as “the Irish guarantees” are not guarantees, and that they are not something that can be done by the Council without calling for a second look at the Lisbon Treaty itself, in this country and in other countries. So the question I have to start this off is, if the decisions amount to an international agreement, which you have said, between EU member states that is legally binding, which I think is the word that was used, why not give it national effect by subjecting it to ratification processes in EU member states now? Would that not give a more immediate assurance to Ireland? We did it in this country for the Lisbon Treaty. We see this as in fact going to be guarantees that are legally binding. Surely, the only way they can be legally binding is if they are in fact ratified as an addition to the Lisbon Treaty at this time?

David Miliband: You asked two things there, Chairman: one, would it give more succour or assurance to Ireland? That is surely a matter for Ireland to decide, not for me to decide, and at no stage did Ireland propose that this should be done immediately. They proposed that there should be a decision of the European Council and subsequently, as was finally agreed, at the time of the next accession an agreement appended as a protocol. The second question you asked was: can this be legally binding? I think the best way of starting out what I am confident is going to be an extremely tortuous discussion on this legal question is to quote...

Chairman: I hope it is also illuminating. Tortuous often loses the audience. Let us keep it illuminating. David Miliband: I wait in the eager anticipation to see if our legal friends who are gathered here make it illuminating or not. This is what John Major said in December 1992.

Mr Cash: Edinburgh.

David Miliband: Post Edinburgh actually, after the European Council, and he said it in the House of Commons. He was referring to the previous decision that is the best preparatory example for what has happened. If you will allow me, Chairman, I will read it out. He said, “We agreed a solution to the issues raised by the Danish Government following their referendum. The solution is binding in international law. It does not in any way change the Maastricht Treaty or require a new round of ratification in member states. It provides an interpretation of the Treaty which Prime Minister Schlueter believes will enable him to hold a second referendum in Denmark in the Spring. It has been welcomed by all seven parties that drafted the original Danish document.” I think that binding international law, legally binding, as I described it to the FAC in the meeting we had there, is right because this is an agreement between the states, it will be lodged at the UN in the way that international treaties are, and that is the sense in which it is legally binding. It does not change the Lisbon Treaty as it affects the UK. It does not require ratification to have legal effect, and that is the reason that I think the Irish proposed that we proceed in this way, first of all to a decision and then to an appending of it to the protocol. I think that is the legal explanation. I am confident however that is not the last word on the matter because I know that there are others on this Committee who have a lot of interest in this.

Chairman: There will, Foreign Secretary, be others but can I just say to you that the statement of the Council’s conclusions was that the decision gave legal guarantees that meet the Irish concerns and, quote, “is legally binding from the date the Lisbon Treaty enters into force” and I believe you have repeated that. My understanding is that under section 1 subsection 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 it cannot have legal effect until it is incorporated by national legislation. My understanding and my recall is that the Danish protocol became a protocol, and in fact, I quote Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead...

David Miliband: A renowned legal authority.

Chairman: ... of 1 July 2009 saying that it becomes binding in international law when the guarantees are translated into a protocol at the time of the next accession, not when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. So we have a contradiction here.

David Miliband: No, no, I am sorry, Chairman, there is not a contradiction. It is legally binding because of the decision that was taken. A decision is legally binding in international law. It is an agreement between states. There is no argument about that. It is deposited at the UN. It can be adduced by international courts as they try to seek interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty. The decision does not change the Lisbon Treaty; it provides clarification, which we had already provided to our own satisfaction in this Parliament but which the Irish wanted further clarification about. The Danish example: the decision remained legally binding as a decision for seven years before it was appended to the 1999 Treaty. The quotation from the European Communities Act does not obviate or negate the fact that a decision of the European Council is legally binding in international law.

Mr Clappison: I think that is in accord with the advice which we have been given. It is in accord with international law but, of course, international law is not the same as EU law and it leaves open the question of the justiciability of the decision. I think you agree, do you not, Secretary of State, that this decision is justiciable in the EU under EU law and by the European Court of Justice?

David Miliband: I think there is a discussion about the European Court of Justice. There is also the International Court in The Hague, which may eventually have...

Mr Clappison: No, let us just stick with the European Court of Justice.

David Miliband: I want to give you a full answer because it would be wrong to mislead. In respect of the European Court of Justice, if there were a case concerning, for example, abortion in front of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice was in any doubt at all about whether or not the Lisbon Treaty interfered with Irish rules and law on abortion, they could happily turn to this decision for further legally binding clarification, and underlining 12 times, that Irish laws on abortion are Irish laws on abortion and are not interfered with by the Lisbon Treaty. That is the extent to which this might be of use to the ECJ.

Mr Clappison: There are a number of things jumbled up there, if I may say, Secretary of State. You spoke of interpretation of it being legally binding. It is the decision of the European Court of Justice which is legally binding. The decision is not legally binding on the European Court of Justice, is it? It may look at it for interpretation but it is not legally binding upon it. That is the reason why you are going to have a protocol later on, at some uncertain time.

David Miliband: I do not accept the second half of what you said because the job of the ECJ is to interpret the treaties. That is the point. It is not the question that the ECJ is somehow legally binding. The ECJ is there to interpret the law, and European law is set in ways that you know extremely well. In our view, the Treaty of Lisbon is absolutely clear on matters of tax and defence and abortion/right to life. The decision gives further legal force in that respect without changing the Lisbon Treaty one jot that came through the British Parliament, and I think you would agree this is a decision of the European Council – a decision as opposed to simply a conclusion – and a decision of the European Council is an agreement between states and is therefore legally binding.

Mr Cash: Foreign Secretary, just to clarify one point, you quite rightly of course pointed out that this was the European Council statement. It is odd that your Minister for Europe refers to it as a meeting of the Council of Ministers but I have the references here. That is a bit odd but let us just pass over that for the moment. Far more important, however, is the fact that, in the light of an exchange I had, as it happens, with the Prime Minister on 23 June on the European Council statement, the fact is that this decision, which was taken at Edinburgh, was a matter which at that time, in 1992 – and I do remember it really quite well as I was leading the rebellion at that time. I think you will find this very important – at least, I hope you will. At that time the House of Commons was in a position to deal with the question which arose during the passage of the Maastricht Bill – in other words, a completely different situation, because this is emphatically not the case now. So how on earth could you not agree that the European Council decision of 18 June must now be re-ratified and then implemented in Parliament with a new Bill? They are completely different circumstances from what you described.

David Miliband: For a very simple reason: paragraph 5 of the presidency conclusion says as follows. “…the Heads of State or Government have declared that: (i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon; (ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any re-ratification of that Treaty; (iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon; (iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements… (v) the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its member states. The sole purpose of the protocol...

Mr Cash: That is their assertion.

David Miliband: Hang on. Let me finish before we get on to your assertion. “The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full treaty status to the clarification set out in the decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. Its status will be no different to the similar clarifications in protocols obtained by other member states. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the treaty.” Then when you turn to the text of the decision itself, which of course takes a different place in the conclusions; it is not included in the main conclusions, precisely to draw attention to the fact that a decision is different from a conclusion; it is in annex one...

Chairman: Before Mr Cash comes back, can I ask you a question that most people looking at this process will be asking. If in fact this is a legally binding decision without the need for ratification, because you have said it does not need ratifying, why do you want to incorporate it into a protocol? Why would you want to do that at some unknown date in the future? To people looking at it, this sounds like a stitch-up to get round the fact that if we do not give Ireland something that is not in the Lisbon Treaty at this moment, which we ratified – it was not there when this Parliament discussed and ratified it, and I supported that ratification and spoke a number of times on that basis – if it is not in that treaty, why do we have to have a protocol? Is it because this is basically a political stitch-up...

 David Miliband: No, I reject that.

Chairman: ... to get round the Irish people’s concerns that those things are not in the Lisbon Treaty that we were asked to ratify as a Parliament? Can you not see why people are suspicious? David Miliband: No, I cannot. They can only be suspicious if they do not have the facts about what has happened, because the allegation one from you – not necessarily that you believe but that you are putting on behalf of those who might believe it – is that this is to get round the Irish decision, but the Irish are going to have a referendum. There is no getting round the Irish decision. The Irish Government have decided to put to the Irish people a further question on the Lisbon Treaty. So no-one can get round the Irish people, and it is important to say that because when I came back to the House after the Irish referendum vote last year, people said, “Aha! You are going to find a way to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without the Irish people agreeing to it.” There is no obfuscation and no going through the back door – nothing like that. The Irish people will have to do it. That is point one. Point two: the Irish Government asked for this to be in a protocol and, as we described in the pre-Council discussions we had, there were two ways of giving legal force to the legal guarantees that had been asked for in the December European Council, and they asked for it and we did not object to it once the text of the protocol decision had become clear. Then, thirdly, and critically, this decision and this protocol in no way in terms change one jot of the Lisbon Treaty as it affects Britain and as was passed by this Parliament. There are quotes in all of the areas from Ministers as this went through the House explaining why tax was not affected, why defence was not affected either and the rights of neutral and other countries would be respected, and non-NATO countries; I remember those debates and therefore it is very important to have on the record that the Lisbon Treaty that was passed by this Parliament as it affects the UK in the range of ways that we have discussed is unaffected by this decision. What is more, the heads of state of 27 European countries have said the same, and they are absolutely clear that no re-ratification is necessitated

. . . .

Chairman: It seems a fair point. It requires it requires unanimity of all countries for a protocol.

David Miliband: It is a good point but that is why it is important that the decision has legal force. That is why the fact that this is a decision, not a conclusion, is important, because the Taoiseach can go to the people of Ireland say, “We have got a decision which is legally binding in international law. It is an agreement between states.”

Mr Cash: You have made some very significant remarks. I may disagree with them but they are significant and they are on the record. I believe, frankly, Foreign Secretary, this whole operation for a long time has, as the Chairman has suggested, had the characteristic of stitch-up and cover-up but I would rather get down to the actual nitty-gritty here because it affects all the member states. What I would simply like to refer you to is what the Minister for Europe in the House of Lords, in the other place, stated yesterday at column 219. I have it here in case you would like me to hand it to you. I have it marked up because I think it is important that you should have a look at this. It has a ring round it and it has a couple of crosses. (Same handed) The Minister said yesterday, and I am quoting exactly what she said, “Everything in the guarantees has been agreed by the Parliament of this country” – she means the Irish guarantees – I repeat, “Everything in the guarantees has been agreed by the Parliament of this country.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree with her or will he admit that this simply is not true?

David Miliband: I would like to know why you think it is not true.

Mr Cash: For the simple reason that we certainly have not agreed in this Parliament to the Irish guarantees.

David Miliband: No, Bill, really. You read out a quote which said, “I am surprised that some Members are not aware that everything in the guarantees has been agreed” and then you said, “Aha! Tell me that we agreed the guarantees.” Of course, the point that Glenys Kinnock made, which you dropped from your second quotation, was everything in the guarantees. The guarantees are about tax, defence and abortion.

Mr Cash: You know perfectly well, Foreign Secretary, that the Irish protocol of 1992 has been, as I said to the Prime Minister...

David Miliband: Danish you mean?

Mr Cash: No, I am talking about the Irish protocol – has been greatly extended. There is a whole sheet of things that have been added in and that affects all the member states, so we are dealing… It seems to me that perhaps you have not been given a briefing on this point.

David Miliband: No. Let us be absolutely clear. The allegation you made is that somehow...

Mr Cash: It is a greatly extended Irish protocol which affects all the member states, therefore there is a need for ratification of this treaty, implementation by a new Bill in this House. How can you deny that?

David Miliband: For the very simple reason that every European country agrees that this decision does not change the Lisbon Treaty. Secondly, if you go through the debates that we had in this House on the Lisbon Treaty and look at what was said about tax and about defence and about abortion – I stand to be corrected but I have a feeling that you challenged me at various points to say “Isn’t this just a ramp to the end of British sovereignty over our taxation policies?” and I said, “No,” and that is what has been reconfirmed by the Irish decision.

Mr Cash: I am sorry to have to say, Foreign Secretary, I think that you are in a very serious muddle over the legal situation here, and I am afraid to say I would have to add – finally, because I think we have to leave it at this point because you cannot answer my questions – that there seems to be no limit – and I am not making personal accusations – to the general deceit which has covered this, and I believe we have to have a referendum as the only means, as 88% of the British people want one.

Chairman: I do not think “deceit” is an appropriate word.

Mr Cash: I shall withdraw the word “deceit”. Shall I call it chicanery?

David Miliband: Can I say, Chairman, that Mr Cash made a series of allegations but ended up repeating his political view, which is sincerely held...

Mr Cash: My legal and political view.

David Miliband: I listened to you so you should listen to me, with respect. He made an allegation that somehow something had been said in the other place last night that was not true. That is not true.

Mr Cash: It is true.

David Miliband: No, I am sorry. It is not true. What you first of all alleged related to the substance of the guarantees, and then you tried to corner this into the question of whether or not the guarantees had been previously discussed in the Parliament.

Mr Cash: “Agreed.”

David Miliband: Secondly, you then went on to a series of allegations relating to the possibility that this decision, and subsequently the protocol, would be a ramp for all sorts of new powers with some parallel that you drew with 1992. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Then when you had been beaten back on both of those two things, you resorted to personal/governmental abuse that restated your position that the European Union is a deceit on the people of Europe, which is your view but the fact that it is your view does not make it correct.

Mr Cash: The manner in which this has been conducted...

Chairman: Mr Cash, Mr Cash.

Mr Clappison: Just briefly to follow on from that, you mentioned the defence debate on the Treaty of Lisbon, which I took part in, as you may remember, or attempted to take part in. We had very little time in those debates to debate defence. Defence was hardly reached because of the way in which the Government organised the debate. I put that as a preamble. The question I want to ask you is the same question on this. When is it that we will have the opportunity to have a debate and a vote in this House on the Irish guarantees?

David Miliband: I do not know how many times I have repeated it here, and I do not know how many times it has been read by people, but there is absolutely no doubt about it: at the time of the next accession treaty the protocol will be appended.

© Parliamentary copyright