22 October 2007
The Prime Minister has explained the events surrounding the signing of the EU treaty and its implications for the British people.
Read the statement
With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to make a statement about the outcome of the informal European Council in Lisbon.
The new agreed text of the amending treaty to support the enlargement of the EU has been placed in the libraries of both Houses.
And alongside the treaty it was agreed at Lisbon that the priority for the European Union now must be the global challenges we face: employment, prosperity, competitiveness, climate change, and security.
Today in a document ‘Global Europe’, published this afternoon, the Government is setting out how we will advance these new priorities in the future.
Mr Speaker, the mandate for the IGC made clear that: ‘the constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called ‘constitution’, is abandoned’.
And my intention throughout the summer and autumn of negotiations has also been to ensure that detailed safeguards for the British national interest are written into the text of the treaty.
And I invite the House to examine in detail both the treaty and the protections that we have secured by our insistence on special treatment for the UK in a range of areas where our national interests demand.
First, I will ensure Parliament has the fullest opportunity to examine the protocol on the Charter of Rights.
The protocol which is legally binding and enshrined in the treaty itself provides an essential safeguard for the UK.
It states that: ‘the Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that the Charter reaffirms’.
Mr Speaker, this legally binding protocol ensures that nothing in the Charter of Fundamental Rights challenges or undermines the rights already set out in UK law.
And the treaty also ensures that nothing in the Charter extends the ability of any court - European or national - to strike down UK law.
This point is reaffirmed in the protocol and I quote: ‘in particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law’.
Secondly, we have secured in detail vital safeguards to our criminal law system and police and judicial processes, while making it possible to cooperate across borders when we choose to do so when it is right in matters vital to our security.
The safeguards are also enshrined in legally binding protocols to the treaty.
They prescribe in detail our sovereign right to opt-in on individual measures, where we consider it in the British interest to do so, but also to remain outside, if that is in our interests.
In the past, for example, we have opted-in on measures dealing with combating illegal immigration and exchange of information - where these measures are unquestionably in Britain’s interests.
The new treaty gives us the freedom to protect the fundamentals of our common law system if we believe it could be jeopardised, while at the same time it allows us to participate in areas where co-operation is in the national interest.
The agreement set out in the details of the text is that it will be in our exclusive power to decide on a measure by measure basis.
As a result of our recent negotiations, the opt-in now covers all types of measures:
- completely new ones
- amendments to existing ones
- and where measures come forward under the Schengen Agreement we also have the right to opt out.
So we can choose to participate in any and every measure. But we cannot be forced to do so. And if we choose not to, there is a fair, objective and robust system for consequential changes but no financial or other penalties.
So we have secured a comprehensive, legally binding, opt-in on all justice and home affairs measures which will enable the UK to choose whether or not to participate in any justice and home affairs measure in future.
I turn to the common foreign and security policy. I welcome further scrutiny by this House of the agreements we have secured.
For again I believe it is now absolutely clear that the basis of foreign and security policy will remain intergovernmental, a matter for governments to decide.
The intergovernmental basis is unchanged, and subject to distinct rules and procedures which protect that position.
The Declaration we secured expressly states that nothing in the treaty affects the existing powers of Member States to formulate and conduct their foreign policy including maintaining their own national diplomatic services and membership of the UN Security Council.
There is no sole right of initiative for the Commission, and there is no role for the European Parliament in decision taking.
Voting by unanimity is the rule for all policy decisions.
Apart from two specific and limited provisions in foreign policy - appeals against EU sanctions and, as now, any overlap for example with international development assistance - there is no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice.
The Declaration agreed on Friday made it clear that the European Parliament would have no new role in the appointment to the new post of ‘High Representative’ which will be made by the European Council.
And there will be no change to the way EU foreign policy is decided - it will continue to be governed by unanimity.
There is, in addition, a clear Declaration that nothing in the treaty including the Office of the High Representative and the External Action Service will ‘affect in any way the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries, and participation in international organisations, including a Member State’s membership of the Security Council of the UN.’
On social security we have secured an effective veto power on any proposals for important change.
We can insist on taking any proposal to the European Council and because it will be decided by unanimity we have a veto where we - Britain - determine that a proposal would impact on important aspects of our social security system including its scope, cost or financial structure.
Mr Speaker, in justice and home affairs the amending treaty gives us the right not to participate; in social security, the right to insist on unanimity.
Many QMV measures - for example rules for the euro or special state aids for Germany - do not affect the UK.
The remaining areas of QMV agreed in June are decisions on emergency humanitarian aid to third countries - manifestly in the UK’s national interest - and energy market liberalisation, again in our interest. Others are technical or procedural and simply relate to the efficient functioning of the Union - for example the internal rules for appointing the Committee of the Regions, judges and the Economic and Social Committee.
While there is a two-and-a-half-year Presidency of the European Council, the President of the Council has been appointed as the servant of the leaders of the national governments —- and the purpose is to strengthen the Council of national governments in relation to other EU institutions.
The new treaty also expressly provides that national security is the sole responsibility of Member States.
The declaration to the treaty makes clear that — while the European Union, like the UN, WTO and the IMF, can sign international agreements — this does not and cannot authorise the Union in any way to legislate or act beyond the powers conferred on it by Member States in the treaties.
As a result of our negotiation we are agreed that the new text will make clear that national parliaments have the right, but are not obliged, to contribute to the work of the Union.
Under the amending treaty national parliaments have a new right to force the EU to reconsider proposals if a third of parliaments feel that the issue is better dealt with at Member State level.
And symbols of statehood that were the characteristic of the rejected constitutional treaty - European flags, anthems or European mottos - have been abandoned in the treaty.
As I have already made clear, the Government will only agree the amending treaty in December if in the final text all the UK’s protections I have outlined are included in the detail we have negotiated.
Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this amending treaty in detail and decide whether to ratify it.
And the Government will recommend that there is sufficient time for debate on the floor of the House so that the Bill is examined in the fullest of detail and all points of view can be heard.
In addition we propose to build into the legislation further safeguards.
To ensure that no government can agree without Parliament’s approval to any change in European rules that could, in any way, alter the constitutional balance of power between Britain and the European Union, we will make a provision in the Bill that any proposal to activate the mechanisms in the treaty which provide for further moves to QMV - but which require unanimity - will have to be subject to a prior vote by the House.
The amending treaty will not be fully implemented until 2014. Indeed one section does not have full effect until 2017.
And I can confirm that not just for this Parliament but also for the next it is the position of the Government to oppose any further institutional change in the relationship between the EU and its Member States.
Mr Speaker, in our view there is also a growing consensus across Europe that there should be no more institutional change for many years.
The December European Council will also consider a Declaration proposed by Britain that Europe moves to a new agenda.
And that the new priorities are a focus on jobs, competitiveness, prosperity, climate change and security so that Europe can play a far stronger part in the competitive economy of the world and be a leader and success story in the new global order.
So because it is right that Europe now focuses not on more institutional change but on the reforms that are needed to meet the challenges of the global era, we are publishing today our agenda for the new priorities that we as an EU must adopt:
- a renewed focus on completing the single market - the priority: liberalisation of the telecoms and energy sectors;
- a commitment to free trade and openness - the priority: ensuring a successful outcome to the world trade talks and promoting better EU-US trade links;
- tackling climate change and energy security;
- combating terrorism and organised crime;
- reducing global poverty;
- reforming the European Union budget.
Mr Speaker, it is by putting in place these changes that we can create a truly outward-looking, globally focused European Union that helps deliver prosperity, opportunity and security for all.
An agenda that is good for Britain and good for Europe. An agenda that allows us to continue to benefit from our membership of the European Union and, by working together, to have a greater influence in the world.
So Mr Speaker, the protections we have negotiated defend the British national interest.
We are putting in place new procedures to lock in our protection of these interests.
We will oppose any further proposals for institutional change in the European Union this Parliament and the next.
We will lead the debate in Europe to move to a new agenda of new priorities that focus on the economic and social needs of our citizens.
And I commend this statement to the House.
delicious
digg
facebook
