Michael Howard On Europe

Introduction

In ten days time the peoples of the European Union will elect their representatives to the European Parliament.

These elections matter. 

The European Parliament has important powers. Its members help to decide the kind of laws that are made in the European Union. They can influence these laws for better or for worse. Or they can abdicate their responsibility and not vote at all – even on matters that are of vital importance to the countries they represent.

Here in Britain we face a clear choice. 

At one extreme there are the candidates from the UK Independence Party. They represent a party that wants to pull out of the European Union altogether. They have frequently failed to vote in the European Parliament on issues that are vital to Britain. 

At the other extreme are Labour and the Liberal Democrats – who want to transfer even more from Britain to Brussels, setting Europe on the path to a single European State. 

The Conservative Party rejects both these extremes. 

The British Conservative Party’s Vision

We have always supported Britain’s membership of the European Union. But we have also always been prepared to stand up for Britain’s interests in Europe. We put Britain first. And we reject moves towards a single European state. 

We want now, what we have always wanted

A Europe that creates jobs, not regulations.

A Europe that is prosperous, not declining.

A Europe that is fit for the global challenges of the twenty-first century.

A modern Europe that echoes the aspirations of its peoples.

But if this Europe is to be achieved the European Union must change. It needs to go in a new direction. 

For the last decade Europe has suffered high unemployment, high taxes, and excessive regulation. 

That’s why Europe is nowhere near as dynamic as the United States. 

Workers in the United States produce a fifth more goods than their European counterparts. Jobs in the United States have grown twice as fast as they have done in Europe. If we had the same record as the United States in creating jobs, 28 million more people would be in work in the European Union today. This cannot continue.

It is now essential that European economies become more flexible to deal with the challenges they face, not only from the United States, but from the emerging economic powerhouses of China and India.

Yet today in Europe the opposite is happening. Increasing regulation is burdening our economies unnecessarily. The instinct of European politicians is to increase the regulatory burden for all to create a level-playing field within Europe. They fail to realise that in doing so, they are giving the rest of the world a huge competitive advantage.

The Conservative Party will campaign for an enterprise Europe that looks outward beyond the borders of its nation states.

And we want to see profound changes in the way the European Union conducts its business as well.

For a decade, the European Commission’s auditors have refused to sign off its accounts because of the scale of fraud and corruption that bedevils the organisation. Every year, more than £3 billion goes missing. This is simply unacceptable. It must be dealt with. Given the nature of these challenges – and the scale of the task we face in meeting them – no sensible person could think that the answer is to give the European Union even more powers. 

But Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy do. Labour and the Lib Dems want to sign up to the new EU Constitution. 

The Constitution would mean giving the EU new powers over crime and asylum. 

For the first time, the EU will have its own criminal code. Europe would be able to tell Britain how to run our police and courts, what rights criminals should have and how to deal with terrorists. 

Because the Constitution would incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law, our asylum laws would be affected as well. That means that the European Court of Justice would start interpreting existing and new EU asylum rules in light of this Charter. 

The Charter is very broad, and includes wide ranging rights. The European Court would start to use a combination of the Charter and existing EU directives to interfere more and more in UK asylum policy. 

And because of the Charter, the Constitution will give the EU and European Court the power to make new laws about how British businesses are run. 

The rights under the Charter include the right to strike, the right to so-called social protection, and the right for workers to have more information and consultation. 

It will be up to the European Court exactly what these rights mean in practice. And if past experience is anything to go by, they will lead to yet more burdens on business – burdens British politicians would be powerless to stop. 

There may well be a case for some of these rights. You don’t have to argue for a free for all to be opposed to more regulation at the European level. You can simply take the view - as I do - that it’s better to argue the issues out here, in Britain, than have them imposed upon us by the majority vote of other countries in Brussels.

It is hardly surprising that over 60 per cent of small and medium-sized businesses think the Constitution would be bad for jobs.

On top of all this, the EU will have a President and a Foreign Minister to set policy. The EU, instead of Britain, will have new powers to make treaties with other countries. The European Court could have new powers to review the actions of the British army.

So I am totally opposed to the European Constitution. Countries have constitutions and I do not want to be part of a country called Europe. 

Even more worryingly, we have learned in the last few days that plans are already being drawn up to take us beyond the European Constitution.
The Constitution is described as the start of a political Europe. The discussion document reveals proposals for a Europe-wide tax, a European minimum income, and giving the European Union “political territory”. It is an explicit commitment to create a fully-fledged European state in the next twenty years.

I want to build a Europe of nation states. I do not want to build a nation called Europe.

So what should Britain do? First, Britain should say ‘no’ to the Constitution. 

Saying ‘no’ doesn’t mean we must leave the EU – just as we can say ‘no’ to the Euro without leaving the EU. 

Saying ‘No’ would send clear message to Europe: we want to control more of our lives, here in Britain. We don’t want to be railroaded into handing over yet more power to Brussels. 

Second, Britain should put forward an alternative vision for Europe, to counter the federalist vision. 

Conservatives have a clear vision for Europe. 

It’s a vision that will help safeguard jobs and prosperity. It will put Britain first. 

We want to create a more flexible Europe. Individual countries should be free to integrate more closely if they want to, so long as they do not force other countries to follow them. And, in the light of experience, we should look at taking back powers from Europe that would be better exercised at a national level here in Britain – and in other countries too. 

There are clear examples of policies that would be better dealt with at national level.

The Common Fisheries Policy has been a failure: it has led simultaneously to the dwindling of fish stocks and the near-destruction of the British fishing industry. Its quota system encourages the dumping of dead catches over the side of boats. Its rules have turned good men into liars.

There is no reason why fishing grounds could not be administered at national level. Not only does this happen in the rest of the world, where many countries have pursued successful conservation policies; it has also happened within the EU itself, where large portions of European waters were never incorporated into the Common Fisheries Policy.

That which no one owns, no one will care for. The first step towards regenerating fisheries as a renewable resource is to establish the concept of ownership. That is why an incoming Conservative Government will negotiate to restore national control over British fishing grounds.

For if we wait much longer, there will not be a fishing industry left to sustain.

I am also keen to see individual member states take more control over their overseas aid budgets. 

Britain has one of the most effective overseas aid and development programmes, where almost all of the aid reaches the people it is intended to help and is used effectively. Very few people could make the same claims about the EU programme, despite Commissioner Patten’s heroic efforts at reform. 

In 1990, 70 per cent of EU development aid went to the world’s poorest countries, but by 2000 this figure had fallen to just 38 per cent. The latest estimates show that it has since increased to 52 per cent. 
But this still means that 48 per cent of the EU’s aid is being spent on middle or even high-income developing countries. In addition, the Annual Report on EU Development Policy for 2001 shows that a quarter of its €7.7 billion expenditure went to countries which were not eligible to receive official development assistance. 

This cannot be the best use of our overseas aid. It is meant to help the poorest people in the world. British aid does that. European aid does not. The argument for extending national control over overseas aid are overwhelming. 

Global Challenges 

Britain's interests are best served by staying in Europe - but by using our influence to make the EU confront its failings and become more tolerant. That is what the mainstream majority in Britain want - and that is what a Conservative Government will give them.

But the fringes at both ends of the European debate are united in one thing. Both give the British people the defeatist message that we cannot have a flexible Europe. They argue that we have to put up with what we are given or leave altogether. Both sides peddle this myth for their own political ends. And they are both wrong.

Since I became leader of the Conservative Party, I have argued the case for a “live and let live” Europe. We do not want to stop countries within the EU integrating more closely if that is what they want to do - as long as they do not try to force us to do what we do not want to do. 

Some say "that sort of Europe is not on offer". I reject that defeatism. It is on offer from the Conservative Party. And it makes sense - not only for countries like Britain who do not want to transfer any more power to the EU. But also for those countries who want to integrate more closely but feel held back by other member states. 

The Conservative vision is not just about what Britain wants from the EU, it is about what all the nations of Europe want from the EU. That is why it is right. That is why it is in their interests to accept our vision of a more flexible and tolerant Europe that respects diversity. 

This is a mature and realistic approach. The enlargement of the EU to 25 member states creates a huge opportunity for Europe but it requires change and modernisation. 

It is not enough to tinker with the weighting of votes in the European Council, as some people seem to think. Those who say that the way forward is to undermine the voting rights of national governments so that they can be more easily forced into doing things against their will, will not succeed in building a successful and durable partnership among European nations. 

Dealing with the challenge of an enlarged EU requires a change in attitude. We need a Europe that is built on mutual respect, not mutual suspicion. For Europe to be a success in the 21st century it needs to do less but do things better.

Such an approach would create an imaginative structure for the European Union. Indeed it could well be seen as a model by countries in other parts of the world wanting to co-operate more closely with each other without sacrificing their essential national sovereignty. 

That flexible approach would ensure that we create a ‘made to measure’ Europe in which the institutional arrangements comfortably fit national interests, not an “off the peg” Europe, ill-fitting and splitting at the seams.

That is my vision for Europe.

And let me make this clear. Only the Conservative Party can deliver this Europe. Not the Labour Party. Not the Lib-Dems. No other party. So if you share our vision for Europe, don’t waste your vote. The only effective vote is a vote for the Conservatives.

I want Europe to succeed. 

Our nations gave birth to a great civilisation.

Our values have been adopted all over the world.

Our history is one of progress, invention and prosperity.

It would be a tragedy now, if the democracies of Europe elected politicians who wished only to take power away from people and create a sclerotic Europe looking to the past. 

Let’s instead vote for a positive Europe, where nations work together for the people of Europe.

That would indeed be a noble contribution worthy of the first decade of the twenty first century.