|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Well, Iain Duncan-Smith
as I say is with me.
Mr Duncan-Smith, he's
taking a hard line it seems, Mr Blair, you're not going to have very much
to hit him with when he comes home are you?
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well you say he's a taking
a hard line, in fact the truth is that Mr Blair set up a series of issues
which as Andrew Marr said, no-one was in the slightest bit interested in
talking about QMV over, so that was a give-away, and then he talks about
tax, and he talks also about border controls, but on tax, there was never
any way in which the British were going to be expected to give that up.
So what he raised, was a straw man, that he could then say, there, I stood
up for Britain, we didn't give way on that. But there are questions about
the things he hasn't mentioned, there's a whole raft of them, seventeen
other areas where QMV is on the agenda, and some of them are really quite
important, but we hear nothing at all about that, and now we hear this
business about the possibility of asylum and immigration being slipped
out from under border controls and put back into Schengen so that we would
give up our veto on that, now I don't know...
HUMPHRYS: Well we haven't given
up our veto on that...
DUNCAN-SMITH: ...but that's where it is.
Well no...
HUMPHRYS: ...issue...
DUNCAN-SMITH: ...ah, that's what they say
on border controls, but now we hear the talk is that they might slide the
immigration asylum out, back into the rest of Schengen so that we would
give up our veto on saying whether anybody can go ahead to merge all of
that together, so there's lots and lots going on behind the scenes in that,
we don't know the exact details so I wouldn't read that Mr Blair has won
anything frankly.
HUMPHRYS: But you would have to
say that wouldn't you really, because you're looking for things to have
a crack at them over, and when you say, all these different issues, most
of which they don't even touch on, the fact is that in many of these cases,
many of these areas where we are prepared and to say, let's put an end
to our veto, but there are terribly good reasons for doing so. It might
be the smoother running of the European Union, it might actually be in
our interest in some of those cases, but you seem to be saying, as a matter
of principle, whether it's in our interest or not, let's hold on to all
our vetoes.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, I just don't happen
to think, and nor does my party, and William Hague has made this clear,
that there is any need now for further extension of Qualified Majority
Voting. There isn't, because all the key core areas that are to do with
the market place were done and dusted a long time ago, and there's no need
now to extend. What we're looking at is extensions much wider than about
trade. We're looking at extensions that are to do with politics and to
do with the creation of a greater and more powerful European Union. A
sort of state, call it what you like. And that's in essence what is really
being debated today, and the rows that we're talking about are really rows
about that level of politics, and William's made it clear, we don't think
there is any need to go to this 'one size fits all' type policy, and want
some flexibility to be able to say there are certain arrangements outside
the market place, you know, countries should not necessarily have to sign
up, which actually would help in getting some of those countries in Eastern
Europe in, because this concept is going to make it more difficult.
HUMPHRYS: But nowhere at all should
we give up any more, no way at all should we give up any more vetoes, even
if it is in our interest I am asking, I mean, take just one example and
that's this thing about free movement of professionals around Europe.
It's not going to harm us, it's going to help us if, if we can, our accountants
can do whatever they want in other countries and all the rest.., why not,
why not?
DUNCAN-SMITH: The point that we've made,
and I will reiterate again is that we're talking here about QMV which takes
you into deeper integration, and most of the areas that we're talking about,
if not all of them are about deeper integration. Let me give you an example
that's classic. Here we have for example a policy which is on the table
I gather, so that people, businessmen, and businesses generally, will have
to justify that they are not being discriminatory, and that is going to
be passed over to the European Commission rather than the other way around
which is enshrined in English law, that actually you're innocent until
proven guilty, they're going to reverse that, so that you're guilty now,
and you have to justify that you yourself are not guilty. That is quite
outrageous, but that is on the table, that is one of things that we talked
about, single skies policy has nothing to do with trade, it has to do with
centring up control on various places around Brussels. All sorts of policies
which the Government refuses to talk about, didn't want to raise as their
big red-line issues, they wanted to talk about issues that were not ever
likely to be ceded away, like tax.
HUMPHRYS: But my point to you was
that you're opposing for the sake of opposition here, effectively to score
political points, and...
DUNCAN-SMITH: ...no...
HUMPHRYS: ...well, I mentioned
movement of professionals, you didn't, didn't pick up on that. How is
that going to hurt anybody, it isn't going to hurt anybody, it's a sensible
thing. It might be in Britain's interest, the Government says, it is in
Britain's interest, but you say, no, don't give way on it because, why?
DUNCAN-SMITH: My point was quite clear
from the word go. It's issues that of QMV that lead to deeper integration
that have nothing to do with the market place. That's the key point that
we're making. And so what we're saying is, issues about movement of professionals
etcetera, and what I call little issues around the market place. We're
talking about issues that are not to do with the market place.
HUMPHRYS: ...but at the moment
there's a veto there...
DUNCAN-SMITH: Yes. But I'm talking about
issues that are not to do with the market place. Not to do with making
a market place move more smoothly.
HUMPHRYS: But you'd hold every
veto?
DUNCAN-SMITH: No, no, no. We are talking
about rejecting all the vetoes, the QMVs rather, keeping vetoes, rejecting
the change of the Qualified Majority Voting on areas that lead to deeper
integration. Most of the areas on the table that will be agreed by the
Prime Minister are in that category. That is what Francis Maude has said,
that's what William has said...
HUMPHRYS: ...but not all, but not
all...
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, there may be small
issues that aren't. But they can't raise those as being the epitome of
what this is about. They are not what this treaty negotiation is about.
This treaty negotiation is about large areas of Qualified Majority Voting,
one of which I gave you, which are nothing to do with the concept of the
free movement of cattle and goods, nothing to do with the core market place.
What our policy is, is that we should now have flexibility that beyond
the market place we should now be able to say there are areas that actually
nations should not necessarily have to be bound into. The charter of fundamental
rights which they've agreed, the Government has agreed. They say it's
not legal, legally binding, but I've looked at endless Court judgements,
they will take into consideration the idea that Europe now has a view about
the fundamental rights of individuals and they will rule of the basis that
this Government has signed up to that and could overrule British Courts.
That's a huge move, nothing to do with the market place, agreed by the
Government. Integrationist.
HUMPHRYS: But just to be quite
clear there are some areas where you would be happy to accept QMV that
you are not at the moment. Let's be quite clear about it.
DUNCAN-SMITH: No, we're not happy under
this treaty as a package, that there will be areas of QMV that we will
agree.
HUMPHRYS: Even if it is in Britain's
interest?
DUNCAN-SMITH: What we would say is apply
the test. Is any of this likely to lead to deeper integration that goes
beyond the market place and we will reject that.
HUMPHRYS: How would free moment
of professionals not be part of trade then.....
DUNCAN-SMITH: But you're setting up on
one aspect.
HUMPHRYS: But you did.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Yes, I've given you three
or four actually.. My point is...
HUMPHRYS: I'm happy to settle for
one you see. I'm happy for you to say, yes okay that's one of those areas
that we could....
DUNCAN-SMITH: I've just said that issue
is about the market place, so there's no rejection on that particular small
issue. I'm talking about the vast majority of things that on the table
that we have said are leading to deeper integration, and my point is very
simply this, that as a party we believe the British public have seen that
this has gone far enough. Actually funnily enough John Major was on the
radio the other day, I think it was actually on the Today programme, saying
that instead of all of this it would be far better if they sat down and
said, these are the areas now which frankly are never up for grabs which
cannot be defined. That's what we're talking about.
HUMPHRYS: Right.
DUNCAN-SMITH: We're talking about no further
deeper integration, we're talking about the politics of this being ruled
out, and if you want enlargement somebody has to say to me, what Tony Blair
says endlessly, what single area of qualified majority voting that we are
going to give away at this treaty is likely to help or encourage the integration
of east Europe. Not one of them, and CAP reform is not on the table.
He hasn't asked for it to be on the table and he won't even discuss it
at this point.
HUMPHRYS: If we get to the stage
and we may not have a treaty of course as a result, if you were listening
to what Andy Marr was saying there, but if we get to the stage where we
do have a treaty but it doesn't get ratified, it doesn't get passed by
the British parliament and you get into power, what do you do about it
then?
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, it depends, there are
two aspects of it. If the government has decided after this to ram through
the ratification in parliament then after the next election what we're
going to say is, that as an integrationist treaty we would have to have
a referendum, the British people would have to decide, William Hague has
talked about it. If at the end of the day they don't get it through parliament
and they have an election at which it is discussed, our view is that we
will take the view quite simply that any integrationist treaty we will
not ratify at all. We will go back and say this I not for ratification,
we didn't agree it because we weren't in government, so we will reject
it. So it depends. If they've ratified it before and then we will simply
take it to the British people afterwards and say, it's your decision to
make on this, we don't believe in it, but you can make the decision. If
however they haven't done then we will take the view that it's integrationist
and we would not therefore pass it through.
HUMPHRYS: But you'd have a referendum
in that other set of circumstances, which is interesting because you're
so opposed to a referendum on the Euro?
DUNCAN-SMITH: We're not opposed to a referendum
on the Euro. A referendum on the Euro is our policy.
HUMPHRYS: I'm sorry. What I am
suggesting to you is this. That the Government is saying, the British
Government, the Labour government is saying, we will have a referendum
in the next election, early in the next parliament. You are saying we
will not have a referendum early in the next parliament, we have chucked
it out altogether.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Ah. That's the point. What
we are saying, the difference between us and the Labour Party is the Labour
Party is saying lots of different messages. They're saying, we will have
a referendum as and when we decide to enter the Euro. And we're arguing,
quite rightly I believe, that it is the Government's intention as soon
as they have fought that election to move very swiftly to try and balance
the country into entering the Euro. They spent huge sums of money trying
to set organisations to change, we're talking about billions that may yet
be spent, and they'll try and bamboozle and persuade the British public
through various threats as we saw in Denmark and various others that they
have to enter the Euro. Our position is that during the course of that
parliament we will not be entering the Euro, there'll be no need for a
referendum because we will not...
HUMPHRYS And you will not have
a referendum....
DUNCAN-SMITH: No, because we will not be
entering the Euro and that is very simple and clear. So the British public
at election will know if they vote for us we're not entering the Euro......
HUMPHRYS: It could solve a lot
of problems for you couldn't it. I mean you might be able to get people
like Ken Clarke back into the Shadow Cabinet which could help you a great
deal, because at the moment he's outside making a great deal of trouble
for you as are other, the big beasts, the Euro-sceptic beasts out there.
It could solve a lot of problems for you couldn't it?.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well I don't know who these
great big beasts are that are causing us trouble. I actually.....
HUMPHRYS: Well I don't know. Ken
Clarke, Michael Heseltine, they're fairly formidable figures aren't they?
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well I you know, Ken and
Michael and others have had their particular views and they've held them
for a long time, and they've been on the stage in the past and they've
been allowed to say those views. I don't have any problem with that.
They're not in the government, they're not in the opposition, they ....
HUMPHRYS: They seem to be the only
people that are recognising the ......
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, I'm not so sure of
that, and I have to say, look this is a policy which was agreed on by the
party. William put it to the vote of the party at large. The party agreed
his position on the Euro, and I think it's supported by the vast majority
of the public who are absolutely opposed to enter into the Euro.
HUMPHRYS: But the difficulty is
going to be just in a few seconds, the difficulty is going be isn't it,
that you want Europe to be an issue at the next election. Every time you
raise Europe as an issue you get people like Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine
putting the opposite point of view and everybody says, ah, the Tories are
split . What I'm suggesting to you is a way out of it.
DUNCAN-SMITH: Well, a way out....
HUMPHRYS: Fifteen seconds - say
yes, we'll have a quick referendum and.....
DUNCAN-SMITH: No, the way out of it John
is to show that this government is deep into integration, all about creating
a Euro-state. Look, for example, they started the defence issue. We now
have a European army in embryo, all started by the Government. You want
it to be an issue - I tell you it will be an issue at the next election.
HUMPHRYS: Iain Duncan-Smith, thanks
very much indeed.
|