I beg leave to offer the House the following Motion.
“That this House believes that the United Kingdom should not adopt the Euro, and calls upon the Government to either formally rule out adoption or to immediately begin preparations for a popular referendum so that the British people can make the final decision about our nation’s economic future.”
Madam Speaker,
I rise today to introduce this motion, which both expresses the sentiment of the House against the European single currency, and affirms this House’s confidence in the people of Britain to make their own decisions when it comes to an issue of such historic significance as this. I was not, Madam Speaker, expecting to be the member introducing this motion today, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing my Right Honourable friend the member for Aldershot well as he fights against his cancer. Plenty of time has already been dedicated to discussing this issue, and this motion ensures that more will, so for my part I will try and summarise clearly and concisely our position on this matter.
The first part of this motion expresses clearly what I believe is an opinion shared by a majority of members across both sides of this House: that the Euro is bad for Britain, and should be comprehensively ruled out by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Whilst the Chancellor in recent times seems to have taken a step back from his buccaneer days as a pro-Euro guerilla, it is undeniable that he still holds a torch for his one true love, even if he cannot outright say it. One does not simply go from calling something an “economic no-brainer” to urging caution and restraint so soon, after all. Instead, wishing to play the part of a moderate and sensible figure, a cut above the rest, he hides behind the five economic tests introduced by the member for Dunfermline East when he was Chancellor. There has been a lot said about these tests in recent months, especially by those in government. The claims are that these economic tests are not political, that they are independent of any Government decision and that we should simply take these figures from Treasury experts at their words. If the tests say no, says the Chancellor, then there will be no Euro. These tests raise more questions than they answer. Firstly, in what world would any assessment of what is best for this country’s economy conclude that surrendering control of our capability to set interest rates and tying our country’s fortunes, irrevocably, to the risk of 14 other European nations is a good move for Britain? Secondly, if these tests are meant to be independent and free from political interference, why did the Prime Minister’s predecessor bring forward the review after his party received a solid drubbing in the European elections? And that, Madam Speaker, tells us why we shouldn’t be paying attention to these tests at all: easily fudgeable tests subject to political interference. Additionally, Madam Speaker, there has been a worrying trend under this New Labour project, to use experts and policy wonks as an excuse for poor decision making. Experts should be used to help craft policy that benefits the whole nation, not as human shields to excuse indecision and incompetence. And when it comes to the question of our national sovereignty, the Conservatives say that the only experts who ultimately matter are the British people.
Let’s put the economic tests aside, Madam Speaker, and focus on the European Union’s own criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty. The need for “convergence”, Madam Speaker, betrays an uncomfortable fact about these economic tests: there will never be convergence between all the European economies to the extent that would be required for our entry into the single currency. Whilst, arguably, the economies of Western Europe and Britain could at one point converge enough to justify entry into the Euro, let us not forget that the European Union is a project that is incredibly dedicated to it’s own enlargement. Current member states like Greece with a predisposition to running large deficits already prove a threat to the future of the Euro before it has even begun, but the PHARE programme for assisting Eastern European states in their accession to the EU, and the Euro, puts the states of Western Europe at risk of being dragged down by the East. A “one size fits all” approach should not, and cannot, suit the diverse nations of Europe, and any attempt to do so is a project doomed from the start.
This brings me on to the second part of the motion, Madam Speaker. If the Government does not take clear and decisive action now to rule out the Euro once and for all, then the very least that can be done is for the ultimate decision over this matter to be put back to the people. All the opposition doing here, Madam Speaker, is trying to cure the case of amnesia that has suddenly come over the government. They were elected only a matter of months ago on a policy promising a referendum on the Euro, but have now proven to be less than forthcoming when pressed on the issue. This policy is not only popular, having won pro-referendum parties an overwhelming victory in 1999 at the Euro elections, but it is democratic, allowing the people to take control of this process rather than us here in this House. It is right that an issue of such paramount importance to the people of this country is made by the people of this country; especially when this government has abdicated their responsibility to govern.