|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well if the government
does find itself in real political difficulty over the Euro, where can
it turn? Its natural allies in Westminster are the Liberal Democrats,
they even sit on a Cabinet Committee, so do they find the government's
approach more acceptable than Mr Maude did there? Their Foreign Affairs
spokesman is Menzies Campbell, he is in our Edinburgh Studio.
Mr Campbell, same sort
of question in a sense, that I put to Francis Maude there. The government
seems to have its act together now, a sensible policy as far as you are
concerned, prepare and decide?
MENZIES CAMPBELL MP: No, I don't believe so, and
what is interesting I think is that the dispute in the Cabinet is one of
strategy rather than principle and that's what makes the dispute all the
more difficult to understand. I don't think it is sensible to think that
you can conduct the next General Election in the belief that somehow the
issue of the Single Currency will not be right there at the very forefront
of people's minds. And that's why we say of the government, that they've
shown far too much timidity. If as the Prime Minister told us last Wednesday
at Prime Minister's Questions, the government believes it's right in principle
to join the Single Currency, then they should be out there arguing that
principle so that people of the United Kingdom understand what's involved.
HUMPHRYS: But, we couldn't possibly
join now, could we?
CAMPBELL: No, it's never been the
case, never been the policy of my party that we should join irrespective
of the economic conditions. We should join when the convergence criteria
have been achieved and in particular, when we have achieved a competitive
exchange rate. But as you pointed out yourself a moment or two ago in your
question to Francis Maude, the OECD believes that we are approaching those
convergence criteria and I think Deanne Julius, member....former member
of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, said something
similar this week as well. We are getting towards the convergence criteria.
All the more reason for the government making it plain that it supports
the principle and making the case as to why the principle is a well founded
one, rather than that rather curious shelf-life principle, which Mr Maude
was having some difficulty explaining to you a moment ago.
HUMPHRYS: Well, he said that you
can't just converge for, you know, a day or two or a year or two, you've
got to make sure it's sustainable. But, would you have a referendum the
moment we meet those criteria. I mean, somebody comes up and says, right,
that's it, now the OECD says yes, we've cracked it, you'd then say, right,
let's have a referendum, let's put it to the people.
CAMPBELL: Well, Paddy Ashdown as
you remember was the first party leader to call for a referendum. The
approach which I would favour would be to say, let's have a referendum
on the principle. If we get the endorsement of the British people on the
principle, then it's a question of judgement for government as to when
the convergence criteria have been achieved, and I think also, if you were
to have a referendum on the principle and get that endorsement, then of
course the convergence criteria would by virtue of that fact, become easier
to achieve, because so much of the convergence criteria depend upon subjective
assessments, I think to some extent Mr Brown may have drawn them in that
subjective way in order to suit his own political interest.
HUMPHRYS: But in a sense you would
be letting the tail wag the dog there, wouldn't you and the reason for
that is because your party believes, has always made perfectly clear, that
greater political integration in Europe is desirable and this would lead
us clearly in that direction.
CAMPBELL: Well I certainly agree
with you about that. This isn't just an economic decision, it's a political
and a constitutional decision too and that's why a referendum is appropriate
and I'd go on from that and say that if we think that staying out of the
Single Currency we are going to be able to enhance our influence on Europe,
we have got another think coming. If we want to have the political influence
which successive Prime Ministers in this country have claimed, including
even Mrs Margaret Thatcher, then we have to be part, in my view, of the
Single Currency, to exercise that political influence and to create a Europe
which is more liberal in terms of its trading policies, which allows a
far higher degree of economic flexibility and makes the single market about
which the currency is, some would argue, the last locking piece, makes
the single market much more effective.
HUMPHRYS: As you say, you like
the idea of referendums, you were the first to suggest one on the Euro.
What about the Tories' idea that we should have referendums on big changes.
The sorts of changes in Europe that fundamentally affect us and are non-constitution
as it were.
CAMPBELL: Well, I think if the
change is big enough, like the Single Currency, then there is some justification
for that, but if you read the small print, what Francis Maude was arguing
about, what William Hague has endorsed in the last week or so, would be
a recipe for paralysis. Francis Maude said in a speech last week in Germany,
there should be no more QMV, Qualified Majority Voting at all - and yet
we know that at the summit which is coming up in Portugal, questions will
arise about QMV, for example, in relation to the liberalisation of transport
policy. Now that in a sense, passes some part of Brussels in that the
veto would no longer be appropriate, but we can hardly go around having
a referendum of whether there should be qualified majority voting on the
liberalisation of transport policy.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but he raised more
fundamental matters than that, didn't he. I mean are you saying that yes,
we would like of course a referendum on the Euro, but that's it, any other
changes and we are seeing ourselves drawn, or we have over the years, seen
ourselves drawn closer and closer into European integration. We have seen
our relationship with Europe change fundamentally, and mostly, we have
not been given an opportunity to vote on those fundamental changes. Are
you saying that apart from this, apart from the vote on the Euro, that's
it, whatever governments choose to do in future, we simply go along with?
CAMPBELL: No, I'm not saying that
and I have to point out as I think you did yourself, this new found enthusiasm
for the referendum on the part of the Conservatives who didn't have one
in relation to the Maastricht Treaty, or indeed some might say, more significantly,
the Single European Act of 1986 which created the Single European Market,
is rather unusual. But if it's a fundamental constitutional change, then
I think a referendum would be appropriate. But just to go back to the
hypothesis upon which you began that question. The integration which has
taken place over that period you described, has been in the interests of
the people of the United Kingdom, that's the important consideration.
HUMPHRYS: Well, yes, but that,
you talk about subjective judgements, that is entirely subjective isn't
it? Many people would say that those changes have not been in our interest
and we would rather like in future to have the opportunity to vote before
they happen and express our views then. So, let me repeat the question,
what sorts of changes, would you say, broadly you're in favour of more
rather than fewer referendums - what sorts of things would you have referendums
on? I mean Francis Maude mentioned the Treaty of Nice that's going to
be negotiated, is being negotiated as we speak, that .....
CAMPBELL: Well, remember what the
Treaty of Nice is designed to do, it's designed to create the circumstances
in which enlargement can effectively take place. There are three major
issues, they are sometimes called the Amsterdam leftovers. There's the
question of constitution of the commission, how many commissioners there
should be and whether every country should have two as of right. There's
the question of the re-weighting of the votes in the Council of Ministers
so that there's a reflection of the total population of a large country
like the United Kingdom rather than just a question of fixed votes in the
Council. And there's also further questions with regard to the mechanisms
by which enlargement should take place. These are not fundamental constitutional
issues of any kind whatsoever.
HUMPHRYS: No referendum on that,
then you wouldn't want a referendum on that?
CAMPBELL: You won't need one. Can
I also make the point that the system by which the United Kingdom ratifies
treaties is, of course, to put them through the House of Commons line by
line and those of us who served through the long watches of the night in
the Maastricht Treaty would not want to claim that that Treaty
had been anything other than examined in the most minute detail, at that
time mostly by government backbenchers, Tory government backbenchers who,
of course, were very substantial dissenters from Mr Major's policy.
HUMPHRYS: So apart from the Euro
is there anything we've done, vis a vis Europe that you would have had
a referendum on.
CAMPBELL: No. I...
HUMPHRYS: Limited enthusiasm then!
CAMPBELL: Because it's a question
of what you regard as being of sufficient fundamental nature. Now the Single
Currency is clearly of that kind but there's nothing that's happened in
my view during the period of Britain's membership which would have justified
having a referendum and I... invest (sic) any proposals against that.
HUMPHRYS: I thought you were broadly
agreeing with Francis Maude that referendums are a good idea except in
principle but not in practice it seems.
CAMPBELL: Where the principle is
satisfied. I think if you go around saying we are going to have a referendum
for example on the Treaty of Nice, which is going to deal with questions
of the weighting of votes in the Council, the number of commissioners,
an extension of qualified majority voting in relation to issues like transport
you will pretty soon get referendum fatigue. The public won't be interested.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, talking about
referendums and all that sort of thing and matters of principle effecting
you, proportional representation. As far as the Liberal Democrats have
been concerned has always been the big one, fair votes you call it. It
seems that your position seems to be changing now and that you are prepared
to accept a system that would not be genuinely proportional and that is
this mysterious thing called the 'alternative vote'. Is that true, that
you would do that?
CAMPBELL: Well I don't know where
that comes from but...
HUMPHRYS: It comes from your leader
ducking a few questions on the Westminster Hour last weekend as a matter
of fact.
CAMPBELL: Well ducking questions
is what leaders go in for isn't it, it's one of the qualifications..
HUMPHRYS: That's very honest of
you to admit it!
CAMPBELL: I mean let's be clear,
the alternative vote is not a system of Proportional Representation, although
if you look round the United Kingdom we now have PR in Wales, PR in Scotland,
we've got it for London, we had it for the European elections, there's
every chance that we'll get it for local government elections so the case
for PR is advancing step by step. So far as AV is concerned, it is not
a proportional system but if that were to be the first stage in an agreed
programme towards moving towards Proportional Representation for Westminster
then it would certainly be worthy of consideration. It would be very foolish
of any party which supported PR to say well we won't take the alternative
vote as a first step towards a fully proportional system.
HUMPHRYS: So you'd accept a referendum
on that then?
CAMPBELL: We might well, this government
has got a commitment of course as you know in its current manifesto..the
manifesto upon which it was elected, to hold a referendum on the system
of election. If the government makes a firm proposal of that kind then
a referendum may well be appropriate.
HUMPHRYS: Very quick thought. I
see in the papers this morning you're up for the Speaker at the House of
Commons, is that true, are you in for it?
CAMPBELL: Fascinating, even flattering
speculation but there's no vacancy and when I last saw Betty Boothroyd
on Thursday she looked to me like someone who was going to go on for a
very long time indeed.
HUMPHRYS: Well that's certainly
true. Ming Campbell, thank you very much indeed.
|