PC17: Signing of Maastricht Treaty

[Griff Rhys Morrison (LAB)]

While I respect the enthusiasm of my fellow pro-European and internationalist colleagues, I would warn that being internationalist and believing in cooperation does not mean that we must jump at every Treaty proposed with open arms. National interests are still a significant factor to consider. In this case, signing up to a Treaty that mandates austerity, that makes government support for public services more difficult, that half-commits to social elements while ruling out others, is not in Britain's interests, nor anybody's frankly.

It is quite sensible to say we are open to Europe, we are open to a Treaty, but reject this one. The Labour Party now needs to be a credible force for arguing what I think most people in this country would say; the UK would be better off leading in Europe but not at the costs the Tories want us to sacrifice.

[Nicholas Eden (LAB)]

Labour are, once again and unsurprisingly, massively misrepresenting the Maastricht Treaty. Yes, there is a ban of deficits over 3% in normal times, but all that does is prevent future Labour Governments from running disproportionately high budget deficits in the good times. This problem is the crux of Labour's opposition to this provision. While the Tories accept that deficit spending in a recession is an arrow in our quiver to protect the economy and support our workers Labour simply want to be free to borrow billions to fund their ideological agenda and protect the unions. Under Maastricht the British people will be protected from perpetual deficit in favour of targeted provisions which allow flexibility mid-recession but ensures responsibility when the economy is growing.

[Amelia Lockhart (LAB)]

There is nothing in the Maastricht Treaty that prevents investment in our public services, a low tax system as delivered by the Conservative Government, and any response required to a future recession. Indeed, it explicitly allows for increased government borrowing to respond to an economic downturn and protect people’s livelihoods - just as we have done in the past. Labour is just engaging in fact-free, scare-mongering as usual.

What it does seek to prevent is Labour’s big spending, big borrowing agenda that would force ordinary families to pay the bill. It seeks to prevent something that would harm Britain in the long-run and slow our economy down. It is clear that Labour’s opposition to Maastricht isn’t because they want to protect the pound - which this Treaty protects - or they want to expand democratic accountability - which this Treaty expands - but because they’re worried that they can’t use Britain for their economic experiment of binge borrowing, big government, and bankruptcy.

[Brown (LAB)]

As Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, I am terribly concerned about the effects this Tory Treaty will have on British farmers and fishermen. In my own constituency and county of Shropshire, many British farmers have found themselves with disadvantaged regulations from the EU which will only be increased by this treaty, helping farmers in France at the expense of my own constituents in The Wrekin. Furthermore, I am disappointed that the Government appears to have abandoned British farmers and fishermen in the name of this treaty, especially after the current Minister for the Environment stated addressed my concerns about the CAP and CFP before the House with an encouraging response that he was going to look into addressing the matter with the Foreign Secretary. I am a European, but a British citizen first--and while I will always champion greater European cooperation, I will never put this goal above supporting farmers in my constituency and fishermen in our United Kingdom. I lament that the Government does not share this view.

[Nicholas Eden (LAB)]

Labour keep complaining about sovereignty but they never actually deal with the substance. They complain we're removing the Queen from our currency, repeatedly ignoring that the Euro is subject to a British opt-out and we will put that opt-out to a referendum on joining the Euro. They complain that we are outsourcing our powers, ignoring the fact that every single power not currently subject to majority voting will be subjected to the British veto. They argue we're bringing about a Federal Europe, this treaty means that the British Government can stop it from affecting Britain through a litany of opt-outs and vetoes. Labour can argue the point all they like but the underlying fact of the matter is that the British Government have negotiated the Maastricht Treaty so that it protects British sovereignty and reforms Europe to respect the sovereign will of the British people.

---

I welcome the numerous Labour voices joining the pro-Maastricht side, including former Deputy Leader Roy Hattersley. The essential thing to remember though is that there is no referendum on our Euro opt-out without a successfully ratified Maastricht so I urge them to vote against the Opposition's Motion tomorrow and support the Government in seeking to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.

[James McCrimmon (LAB)]

This Tory Treaty primarily hurts the working class at every turn. However, the most appalling thing in it is the deficit limit. Currently, we are running a deficit of 12% GDP because the Tories wanted to slightly reduce their Thatcher era cuts but not raise taxes on the rich. Now, with a limit of 3%, they're either going to have to raise taxes on everyone, proportionally raise taxes on the richest in our society, or cut public services spending - and it's clear which one they won't do. We'll be at the whims of the Germans to decide if our circumstances are exceptional enough.

Deficit spending is never ideal, but if it needs to happen, it needs to happen - and a limit like this will only constrain our resources. If the choice is between the Maastricht Treaty and fully funding our public services, I'll choose the people of Britain's basic needs before anything else, every time.

[Nicholas Eden (LAB)]

Labour keep lying about the 3%, there is an explicit line in the treaty allowing for more spending in emergencies, as seen in the Government's recent Budget. What this treaty does is it prohibits is Labour's hard left leadership from running permanent deficits at 15% of GDP to pursue their ideologically bankrupt ideas that have been rejected at the last three General Elections.

[Dr Mary MacAndrews (LAB)]

I am glad to see some brave, Labour MPs stepping forward to signal their support of the Maastricht treaty. It can't be easy for them in a party that is becoming so inward looking and isolationist all because they wish to oppose for opposition's sake. This treaty is an important step forward for the European project, one that will ensure Britain has continued access to the growing prosperity of Europe meaning greater opportunities for British workers and businesses. Labour can not see this potential future in Europe, so in their ignorance they retreat to the only thing they know; opposition and it is a position they know all too well.

[Griff Rhys Morrison (LAB)]

I have seen quite a few Conservatives take time to make the point that the 3% rule is to lock-out future Labour Governments from making spending decisions. While I appreciate the confidence they have that the next Government will be a Labour one, I do question the morality of negotiating a Treaty on ideological, rather than evidence-based terms. 

The public can see right though the ludicrous hyperbole that Labour putting decent spending into public services is so terrible we need to quickly ditch the pound and sign any old Treaty.

[Alex Cardigan MP (LD)]

Well, chaps, as always, we've seen the main two parties bash lumps out of each other, when really, there was a very sensible middle ground to be made. We should have a vote, absolutely - and we should also be proud to be leading in Europe and the world. Our politics doesn't have to be like this, and we don't have to continue with this silly system of trashing whatever we do. The Liberal Democrats listen to people, and listen to good ideas, not to party lines. And I hope that our position here - to have a vote, so we can campaign for Europe and win - is one with the integrity that this debate needs.