Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Contribution to the Future of Europe Debate
The contribution made by Timothy Kirkhope MEP on 7 September 2001.
Good public policy requires a vigorous preliminary debate. One of the problems with the European Union is the limited scope for proper debate. The moment any politician, party or grouping question anything, they are pigeon-holed as Eurosceptics or Europhiles rather than listened to as contributors to the on-going European debate. As a lawyer by profession, I am naturally “sceptical”, but would not accept the description “Eurosceptic” with all that entails. When I engage in debate, I think it is right to be at least quizzical about the merits of any proposal for my constituents. Scepticism is an important part of any debate and the problem with the EU is that there simply isn’t enough debate.
We have ‘debates’ in the European Parliament, but the scope of that debate is limited. With respect to my colleagues, no one will ever deliver brilliant oration on the need for enlargement or the case against the single currency when we are limited to one, or if we are very lucky, two minutes. Is the level of debate or the scrutiny of legislation any better in the Committees? ‘Scrutinising’: what does that mean? It often doesn’t mean, frankly, very much at all. In any case, which newspaper regularly covers the work of the Committees, as opposed to the alleged level of expenses? If this is the level of debate, how can we expect a proper debate about the future of Europe?
Rushed legislation is often poor legislation because it hasn’t been properly thought through. For example, when I was a Home Office Minister in the last Conservative Government in the United Kingdom, we introduced new controls on firearms following the Dunblane massacre. Looking back, this was “knee-jerk legislation”. With more debate (and with the benefit of hindsight) we would have approached things differently.
I believe that the EU is suffering from a similar problem. It is rushing through a vision without properly considering the practicalities. This can be seen in two areas of European public policy: the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Rapid Reaction Force.
As a member of the Charter of Fundamental Rights Convention, I welcomed the emphasis placed on the protection of human rights, but I worry about its compatibility with the European Convention of Human Rights. We are in a situation where we have two sets of human rights law: we have the Convention set up by the Council of Europe and the Charter established by the European Union. Both the Charter and the Convention deal with the same area of law but with different wording. Why does the competence of the EU need to include an area that is dealt with satisfactorily by the Council of Europe? Two sets of human rights law will undoubtedly harm rather than help the very people it was designed to protect.
Similarly, would a separate European Rapid Reaction Force help or harm the security of the peoples of Europe? The resolution of the Balkans conflict was brought about through NATO not the EU. “Exactly,” argue supporters of the new defence initiative, “that’s why we need an independent European defence force.” I argue the reverse. Only if we maintain our links with NATO, and through NATO our links with countries outside the EU, will we guarantee maximum security for the peoples of Britain and Europe. Why does the competence of the EU need to include an area which NATO already excels in?
It is true that some countries are more enthusiastic about European integration than the British, but this does not mean that Britain’s horizons end at the Channel. Britain is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of NATO and one of the G8, and the Queen is Head of the Commonwealth. Britain and the British Conservative Party is internationalist in outlook. But we are worried that the creation of a European Federal State would reduce British horizons rather than expand them. Does accepting the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights mean rejecting the non-EU members of the Council of Europe? Is support for a European Rapid Reaction Force a rebuff to our NATO allies? People assume that support for ‘ever closer union’ entails internationalism. I believe that Britain’s internationalism should be pursued through the European Union as well as through other international groups.
The Conservative Party’s opposition to a European Federal State is also grounded in its natural scepticism towards the institutions of the European Union. We passionately believe in democracy and accountability and for that reason we support the development of the Ombudsmen to act as a ‘check’ on the institutions on behalf of the peoples of Europe. We also recognise that the applicant countries have made massive sacrifices to adopt the acquis communautaire and we want to ensure that the enlargement process is not used as an excuse by the institutions to increase their power. For this reason, we welcome Neil Kinnock’s report but we do not think it goes far enough. A much more radical approach is needed to check the institutions and ensure the long-term prosperity of the European Union.
Politicians are supposed to be answerable to the people: I am, I always have been and I will continue to be as long as I serve my constituents. This duty includes a proper debate to prevent a simplistic approach to the future of Europe with its accompanying harmful effects. The Conservative Party will continue to argue the case for a free enterprise, free trading Europe, with more checks on the institutions and more accountability to the people; and we will also voice our united opposition to a European Federal State as part of the debate that Europe so desperately needs.
