|
====================================================================================
NB. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND
NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT; BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING
AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES, OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS,
THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY
====================================================================================
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE:
27.05.01
====================================================================================
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon - and
welcome to the third of our On The Record election debates. This week
the campaign has been dominated by Europe. Tony Blair made a big speech
about it on Friday. And it's Europe that will, I suppose, inevitably prompt
the most questions from our audience here in the studio. To answer them,
Robin Cook, Francis Maude and Menzies Campbell. Join us for what should
be a lively discussion after the news read by Fiona Bruce.
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: Welcome back. The theme
of our live election debate this week is foreign affairs. Do we have
an ethical foreign policy? Should we have even closer relations with Europe
or maybe pull out altogether. Should we join the Euro? Is it true that
we have eleven days left to save the pound? Questions that may well arise
in the next hour or so for our three politicians: the Foreign Secretary,
Robin Cook, the Shadow Foreign Secretary Francis Maude and the Liberal
Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesman Menzies Campbell. And this is a debate
gentlemen, a minute maximum each answer if you would please and if you
go over that then I may even be forced to interrupt you, something I am
very very loathe to do as you.....
ROBIN COOK: We are aware of that.
HUMPHRYS: Thank you Foreign Secretary,
and our first question comes from Richard Green who' s a student in business
studies and who'll be voting for the first time, Mr Green.
RICHARD GREEN: Yes. Do you agree that
giving up the pound would mean giving up too much of our control over our
own economic policies.
HUMPHRYS: Menzies Campbell.
MENZIES CAMPBELL: No, I believe the economic advantages
of Britain's membership of the Single Currency would be very significant:
lower interest rates, lower mortgage rates, the opportunity to fashion
and complete the single market which Francis Maude had a great deal to
do with by signing the Maastricht Treaty. I think it would be absolutely
in Britain's long term economic interest that we should be members of the
Single Currency and I think that by being timid about this as the Prime
Minister has been, although he has shown a little more improvement I think
in recent days, he has not done his best for Britain's interests and I
think the attitude of the Conservative Party which says it is against it
in principle but only for five years is frankly disingenuous. I can understand
why you have a policy that only lasts for five years, but I can't understand
why your principle only lasts for five years.
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, why does
it?
FRANCIS MAUDE: Well we think it does indeed
risk impinging on Britain's ability to govern itself in economic terms
and there was a very interesting answer from a senior Cabinet Minister,
Labour Cabinet Minister this week. He was asked, can you name a Single
Currency area, a currency union that's existed without being backed up
by a political union. And his answer was very revealing, he said yes,
the United States of America. And I was obliged to point out to him that
the United States of America is actually a single country, it has its own
United Nations seat, it is a single country and if that's the best Labour
can do, that they think actually the result of us joining a Single Currency
is that we are going to belong to a United States of Europe, then that's
not very reassuring. But we've seen also this week what is the advance
guard of the erosion of the ability to govern ourselves economically in
all the European Commission plans for tax harmonisation because we've seen
how they got plans to harmonise taxes or co-ordinate it, as they call it
because they know harmonisation is an upsetting word, across a whole range
of taxes and that is the area in which you would first see Britain's ability
to govern itself being eroded if we scrap the pound and joined the euro.
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook?
ROBIN COOK: Well, what the Commission actually
said this week Francis was the flat opposite of what you have just said
to this audience. The Commissioner who introduced that paper said harmonisation
of income tax is out. I do not believe in it he said. The Commissioner
said harmonisation of company taxes is out. On the contrary, what that
document shows is a move towards accepting the necessity for tax competition.
But if I can come back to Mr Green's question, my answer to your question
in also no. We have first of all to make sure that we make the right decision
in the interests of Britain's economy and that's what we will do. Will
it be good for British jobs, will it be good for British exports, will
it be good for British investment. If the answer to that is yes and we
are going to have a stronger economy as a result then the politics of the
case also has to point in the same direction. You cannot retain your political
leadership in Europe or your political leadership around the world, if
at the same time your economy is becoming weaker and it would be perverse
to make a judgement on prejudice, as the Conservatives will, if that was
against the national economic interest. That hard-headed approach on the
economic realities has to be right way to judge this.
HUMPHRYS: If your answer to the
question is no Robin Cook, what did Gordon Brown mean when he said in 1997
to share a common monetary policy with other states represents and I quote
"a major pooling of economic sovereignty".
COOK: Yes it would be a major pooling
and nobody is denying that but it's a pooling John.
HUMPHRYS: How can you pool something
without ...
COOK: ...but John if you do not
do that, if you do not take that step, having come to the conclusion that
you would be better off inside, that you would have a stronger economy,
then you are actually then rejecting a step that would give us greater
political influence, greater leadership around the world, greater leadership
within Europe. These things have to be judged on the balance and I do
think John if you imagine we are going to have a greater political control
over economy if that economy is weaker then we are making a very big mistake.
HUMPHRYS: So we can lose a bit
of control so long as what we have is for a large number. Let me put
one other quote to you if I may, Pedro Solbes who is the European First
Commissioner, European Commissioner, "in EMU, Economic and Monetary Union,
you have to do what is coherent at European level, not just for your own
country" - not just for your own country.
COOK: But John, you cannot make
a decision for your own country in defiance of the economic reality of
what is happening in your largest markets. We sell a clear majority of
our exports to the European Union, we sell ninety per cent of the exports
of our cars goes to the European Union. Do not imagine that if we stay
out of this we are going to be able to ignore what is happening in European
Union or in the Eurozone. On the contrary, what happens there will have
a big impact on how we approach things, only we won't have any say then
on what actually is happening within the Eurozone. Much better we are
in there influencing what happens there, than outside with no influence
on decisions we have to take about our own economy.
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, let me
put something to you that you said about going into the euro, "the option
we offer possibly to join in seven or eight years time. We say not now,
we do not say never". You said that in September of 1998, so in other
words we might go in under a Conservative government in the foreseeable
future.
MAUDE: I have said more times than
I can remember that I personally find it very hard indeed to envisage circumstances
in which we would want to join.
I think it's highly unlikely...
HUMPHRYS: But not impossible.
MAUDE: Not impossible, I'm not
arrogant enough...
HUMPHRYS: So it's not a matter
of principle.
MAUDE: Well, I'm not arrogant enough
to believe I know all truth for all time. I mean, there are a whole range
of reasons, principled, pragmatic, economic, financial, constitutional,
political, whole range of reasons which mean that the conclusion we should
reach is that we should keep the pound. So I have no difficulty about
that. But I'd love to hear Robin Cook say what he meant, understood, when
Stephen Byers
implied that the result of us joining the Single Currency is that we would
be part of the United States of Europe.
COOK: No he didn't say that Francis
and you're perfectly...
MAUDE: ...if the only you can give
is the United States of America what on earth...
HUMPHRYS: Have you got the time
and the date and the quote and the context and all the rest of it for that?
MAUDE: I was there. I was in the
studio with him. It was on Wednesday of this week, as clear as crystal
and I had to point out to him that of course the United States of America
is already a political union, indeed was for a hundred years before it
had a Single Currency, so what on earth was he meaning?
HUMPHRYS: Quick answer to that
Robin Cook and then...
COOK: The fact John that there
is no example from the Nineteenth Century or the Eighteenth Century when
it would have been wrong to ...
MAUDE: ...or indeed at all...
COOK: ...does not mean that it
may not be right for the Twenty First Century in which we are living in
a global economy at a greater degree of global interdependence than ever
before. But I must say, listening to Francis Maude, I do find it impossible
to see how he can advance the argument he does, without ending up with
the same conclusion that Baroness Thatcher came to, which is the answer
for them is never and they want the public out there to think the answer
is never, even if the economic case was in favour, they would stay out
because of their party prejudices.
HUMPHRYS; Ming Campbell.
CAMPBELL: Well all that this tells
us beware of what you say in public because it may be put back to you some
time later. Francis Maude also said at or about the same time you've just
described that not joining the Single Currency was not a matter of religious
conviction. And if you listen very carefully to his answer today and the
answers he has given in the course of this campaign, he has never once
enunciated his opposition in the terms of the official party policy of
the Conservative Party. He has never said that he is against it in principle.
MAUDE: I am the official party
policy...
CAMPBELL: ...indeed, but he has
never adopted, he has never adopted the language of the policy. And you
don't just have to take our word for it. This morning there are reports
in the newspapers that people like Michael Bishop and Niall Fitzgerald,
the man who's the head of Vodafone, serious economic figures in this country
contributing to the prosperity of the United Kingdom, who are natural Tory
supporters are deeply concerned about the Tory Party's policy because they
see, as I believe to be the case, that if Britain were not to join, we
would become some kind of off-shore island, floating off Europe, but being
deeply affected by what happened in Europe, but having no influence over
the turns of that debate.
HUMPHRYS: ...so that doesn't worry
you at all, does it Francis Maude?
MAUDE: It's not exactly earth-shattering
news that a number of business leaders want to join the euro if their business
is oriented in that direction I can understand why they think that's right.
But actually a hugely larger number of business leaders want to keep the
pound and rather more importantly than that I think, something like two-thirds
of the British public at the last count seem to want to keep the pound
and you know, this isn't a sort of ignorant beleaguered minority view or
an extremist view, these are sensible people who look at the future of
their country and want Britain in the future to be an independent self-governing
country, with an internationalist world-wide outlook that can count for
something in the world.....
APPLAUSE
HUMPHRYS: We'll stay with this
theme because we have another question in the same area from Marion Stockley,
who is retired I gather.
MARION STOCKLEY: As we are part of the European
Union isn't there a danger that if we are not using the euro by 2005, we
will lose political influence within Europe.
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook.
COOK: Well Tony Blair said this
week that if we remain outside the euro then obviously it will be more
difficult to maintain leadership within the European Union. That leadership
is very important for Britain, it's the basis in which we've been able
to get agreements in Economic Reform. It's the basis in which at Nice we
were able to win friends, win arguments and get a bigger vote for Britain.
It's the basis in which we are the leading champion within the European
Union for the enlargement that is so important for stability and security
in central Europe. All of those things are very important for Britain.
Now, the longer you stay out of the Eurozone the greater will be the difficulty
in maintaining that leadership that we have at the present time. But I
stress the economics have to be right. The economic argument has to count,
has to point towards membership and if it does, we will let the people
decide. This is why I find myself so puzzled by Francis Maude's attitude
that the British people are against it but we must make a decision in this
General Election, we can't trust the British people to decide in a referendum....
MAUDE: ...can't trust the government
to have a fair referendum....
COOK: ..if you really have faith
Francis in that judgement of the majority being against the euro, then
why on earth are you opposing our proposal we will let the people decide
on a referendum. What can be fairer than that?
HUMPHRYS: So clearly there is a
balance to be struck here. You..there are the five economic tests about
which we hear a great deal but there is also a political price to be paid
for not going in. So clearly there is a balance to be struck here?
COOK: No, it's not a balance. Those
five economic tests are paramount to economic judgement must be right.
It must point towards there being more jobs, more exports, more investment
if you're in than if you're out. But, you would, in the longer term, you
would have a greater difficulty in maintaining leadership in Europe from
outside. That is why the political arguments and the economic arguments
run side to side and point to the same conclusion John.
HUMPHRYS: Ming Campbell.
CAMPBELL: I don't think we should
run away from the fact that there are economic, political and constitutional
arguments about joining the Single Currency and that's why Paddy Ashdown,
when he was leader of the Liberal Democrats was the first person to say
that this was an issue of such importance that the people of the United
Kingdom should have the opportunity to pass judgement in a referendum before
Britain actually joined and the political advantage is, it seems to me,
that we would be able, as a leading economy in Europe, to influence the
nature of the economic debate in the European Union. Stand outside and
you have no influence over that debate but be as close to Europe as we
are, send sixty per cent of your exports to the European Union and we in
turn would be influenced by that debate but have no control over it.
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude.
MAUDE: Well on this question of
influence I always find very interesting, it's the idea that in order to
have influence you have to give up power. I think at the moment we have
a lot of influence over setting interest rates in this country. The Bank
of England has actually a hundred per cent influence, how we improve our
life by substituting for that fifteen per cent influence in the European
Central Bank, doesn't seem to me to stack up. In terms of wider political
influence we do that, we have wider political influence, not by just tamely
going along with everything that's proposed by Brussels, that doesn't give
you influence, if we are genuinely going to lead in Europe, as I believe
we should, lead the debate, then we have to have our own distinctive ideas
in which Tony Blair and Robin Cook have lamentably failed to have. Just
on Robin Cook's point about a referendum, why won't the Conservatives agree
to have a referendum, well he himself last week said, on a similar programme
to this, he said it would be absurd for a government to have a referendum
if it was not advocating joining the euro. So, I mean, it's obvious Robin
Cook himself has accepted that the right thing for a Conservative government
which wants to keep the pound not to have a referendum. And if..we do actually
have a lot of confidence in the common sense and good judgement of the
British public, which is why we think that if there were to be a referendum,
it should be a completely even handed one and I wonder whether Robin Cook
is prepared today to make the undertakings that he's refused to do throughout
this campaign which is to tell us what the question would be, give a firm
guarantee what the question will be in that referendum, tell us that he's
prepared to guarantee that the campaign to scrap the pound will be allowed
to spend no more, not a penny more than the campaign to keep the pound
and to tell us that he will guarantee that a future Labour government will
not mount a massive taxpayer funded so-called information campaign which
actually amounts to a propaganda campaign.
APPLAUSE
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook.
COOK: First of all, on the question,
Tony Blair said the question could well be should...
MAUDE: ..no, what will it be...
COOK: ..Francis let me finish what
I have to say because you put out three questions. Let's respond to them.
HUMPHRYS: The question first of
all, for the referendum.
COOK: Should Britain be in the
Single Currency? - yes or no. That question has to be approved by both
Houses of Parliament, including the House of Lords where we have no majority.
It may well be that question Francis..
MAUDE: Will you tell us?
COOK: This is not a particularly
difficult issue to work out what would be a fair question and if Francis
really imagines...
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, as I understand
it, because he's pressing you a bit there, but let me be quite clear. You
are saying, that that is what the question will be?
COOK: No, I'm saying what the question
WILL be John because after...
HUMPHRYS: ..well what are you saying?
COOK: ....it would have to be decided
by an Act of Parliament and...
HUMPHRYS: ...but that is the question
that...
COOK: ...that is a perfectly reasonable
question.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let's phrase
it differently..sorry if I can just come in. Let's phrase it differently.
Are you saying that that is the question you would like it to be, given
that everybody else...
COOK: I personally would support
that question, yes.
CAMPBELL: I'll support that too.
COOK: So here we have quite a simple
substantial vote in the House of Commons.
But if I may come back
to the central point here. It is preposterous to suggest that we can somehow
sneak this past the British public by a loaded question. The reality is
everybody will know when they go into the Polling Station what is the reality
of doing yes or no and we should trust the public to see that and not have
these fantasies of Francis Maude that the public are going to be easily
bamboozled by the question.
HUMPHRYS: Hang on Francis Maude.
What about the amount of money that is going to be spent on the campaign.
Will you guarantee that no more taxpayers' money will be spent on the yes
campaign than on the no campaign.
COOK: Yes I can certainly guarantee
that and indeed it's set out in the Act of Parliament that the umbrella
organisations can only spend five million pounds each. By the way, it was
the Conservative Party who opposed this, it was the Conservative Party
that wanted to have no limits at all on referendum spending.
HUMPHRYS: Let me just check with
Ming Campbell..with Francis Maude and then... you've got two very straight
answers there, at least they appear to be. Robin Cook is saying this is
the question we would like it to be and we guarantee that no more money
will be spent on one than the other. Are you happy with that?
MAUDE: No, first of all...well
because they are not straight answers...
COOK: ..because you don't want
to ask the people Francis, you don't want the people to have the chance
to decide. You want to decide on your prejudice not their national interest.
MAUDE: First of all, why is he
not prepared to tell us what the question will be and why when they put
the legislation through Parliament, would they only barely, grudgingly
agree to make the electoral commission certify that the question was even
intelligible, they refuse to accept an amendment ....require to certify
that it would be fair. So I think we can expect there to be a loaded question.
HUMPHRYS: Sorry, do you think we
are so daft, that the public is so daft that we wouldn't be able to tell
which was the yes....
MAUDE: If Labour is so confident
about this why won't they commit to it being a genuinely even handed referendum...and
when Robin Cook says...
LADY FROM THE AUDIENCE: ...if they make it sound so cosy,
why is it that two thirds of the people don't want to go into Europe and
they are making it sound so cosy.
HUMPHRYS: We generally don't take
interventions because we're not miked up for it, but nonetheless, why in
that case, it didn't quite fit into the context of what we are saying,
but in that case if it is all so cosy and so straight forward, why have
we got the public opinion the way it is at the moment Ming Campbell.
CAMPBELL: All the people here have
got opinions. The idea that somehow they are going to swap these opinions
because the government does one thing as opposed to the campaign that says
stay out. I wish I could be confident that the yes campaign was going to
have as much money as the no campaign because all the indications are that
the no campaign, based on the personal fortunes of a number of people may
have extensive funds, far beyond anything that the yes campaign may have.
Let me also make this point. There are about fifty organisations committed
to keeping Britain out of the Single Currency, they would all be entitled
to spend up to half a million pounds in pursuit of that objective. I don't
think this is going to depend on who's got more or less money than the
other, it's going to depend upon the arguments which are put and ultimately
on the common sense of the British people.
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude. Your leader
Mr Hague has said that a referendum on the euro would be rigged, you've
just said that yourself in effect. So people have to see this election
as the real referendum. Therefore, if you lose this election and please
don't say you're not going to, let's assume that you may lose, you may
win. If you lose this election, would you accept that, since you regard
it as a referendum, as a vote for the euro..
MAUDE: No, we're not saying it's
just a referendum on the euro. No-one has ever suggested this election
is just a referendum on the euro and are we... obviously we are campaigning
to keep the pound and what we are saying to people is this is the last
chance you have to be sure of keeping the pound because the referendum,
everything that Robin Cook says today bears out that they are not prepared
to commit to this being a genuinely even handed referendum.
HUMPHRYS: So you would therefore,
your reaction then to Liam Fox, one of your shadow cabinet colleagues who
said on Thursday that he would say to those and I quote "say to those who
say they want the pound abolished, then vote Labour or Liberal Democrat".
Would you go along with that?
MAUDE: I would say to people, if
you want to keep the pound you vote Conservative, it's the only way you
can be sure.
HUMPHRYS: And if you want to get
rid of it then you vote for one of the others.
MAUDE: If you want to keep the
pound you vote Conservative..
HUMPHRYS: Well that follows doesn't
it.
MAUDE: There are a lot of other
very good reasons which I am happy to expatiate on if you invite me to
on voting Conservative.
CAMPBELL:: And it follows on from
that answer that if you do vote Labour or Liberal Democrat then you are
voting to join the Single Currency.
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook.
COOK: But what we are saying is
that this is an election for the election of a government and that government
has responsibility for the standard of your schools, your hospitals and
your economy. This is not just a referendum on the Single Currency and
believe me the Conservatives...when they've lost this election will not
turn round and say they accept the result. But this idea we can trick the
British public by some smart question and some manipulation of the funds
has as much connection of the reality as Lord Tebbit's claim that the SAS
are now running the UK Independence Party it shows the extent to which...
HUMPHRYS: I read what he said but
anyway there we are, let's not go down that road. We've got another question
from Martin McLaughlin who's an export manager.
MARTIN McLAUGHLIN: I feel Brussels already has
too much power. Which of the parties is going to ensure that we receive
no further legislation from Europe.
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude.
FRANCIS MAUDE: Well we agree with you that
Brussels has too power. We think that many more decisions are made at
Brussels level than should be and I don't know any other international
organisation today that still is wedded to the head office culture, that
still believes it's better for things to be centralised in the middle.
Every other multi-national business, voluntary organisation, NGO, they're
all creating multi-centred organisations where decisions get taken at national
level much more than just at the centre. And we think that's the way the
European Union's got to go. It's got to become much more modernised, de-centralised,
and much more sophisticated organisation fit for the network age, and that's
why we have proposals for seeking the return of some decision taking powers
to the member states. In agriculture, for example, who today believes
that the right way to run agriculture throughout the European Union, even
with a union of fifteen countries, let alone with nearer thirty, is to
have a common policy centralised driven from Brussels. Doesn't make any
kind of sense. It's a relic of a bygone age. But during the whole of
this four years that Labour's been in power, I'm not aware of Robin Cook
or Tony Blair even putting on the table a proposal for any powers to be
decentralised from Brussels. If they have done it, they've been very quiet
about it, but if they've done it, they've certainly failed.
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook?
COOK: Well, we did get that agreement
exactly at the Nice Summit. And what we agreed at the Nice Summit is that
over the next three years, there will be an examination of the balance
between the centre of Brussels and the member states and where the decision
making should be taken, should the decisions be taken within European decisions,
should decisions be taken within the member states. And indeed we were
successful at Nice in getting the agreement to that text, looking forward
to those decisions in 2004, with respect to subsidiarity, in other words,
we've already got it clearly established that we'll be looking at this
from the perspective of what can be devolved to the member states. But
there is one sharp cleavage between us, I'm not going to deny that, what
we are seeking to achieve in 2004 is an agreement within the European Union
in which powers may be passed back to the member states and which national
parliaments will have more of a say at present, across the European Union.
What the Conservatives are proposing at this election is breathtakingly
unrealistic and that is that they would claim for Britain the right to
pick and choose, which laws to obey and which laws to refuse and Francis
Maude couldn't get into his local golf club on the basis he'll pick and
choose which rules he'll obey, and he wouldn't care for it if he ended
up playing somebody else who'd picked those rules for himself. We don't
want France or Germany to the right to pick and choose the rules themselves,
we want them to be bound by the same rules as the rest of us, we want them
to be subject to European Court of Justice and that is why the Conservative
proposal would actually be deeply damaging for Britain's interest because
we need to have those rules obeyed if we are going to continue to maintain
our exports in the European Union.
HUMPHRYS: Ming Campbell?
CAMPBELL: Well since this is the
day of quotations it's worth reminding ourselves that today Sir David Hannay
former permanent representative of the United Kingdom at the EU has said
the Tory Party's proposals on this particular matter that Robin Cook's
just been referring to are either a suicide note or a cry from the heart.
Not only can't the Tories point to a single country that's up for renegotiating
the Nice Treaty, so far as I am aware, they can't point to a single political
party in the European Union that wants to do that. So far as the volume
of legislation is concerned I don't think you should look at this simply
on a quantitative basis, you must look at it on a qualitative basis. We
can't deal with the problems of the environment, or cross-border crime,
unless we have European Union protocols to deal with that, and therefore
it's the quality of legislation and the purpose of the legislation which
is important. I certainly sense there's a risk I suppose of agreement
breaking out. I certainly support the notion that in 2004, when we have
the constitutional IGC there should be a clear definition of the rights
and the roles and responsibilities of the institutions of Europe, their
relationship with the member states, but also, that the rights of individual
citizens ought to be properly reflected in a constitutional declaration.
That is the way in order to make things abundantly clear so that people
know precisely where they stand. At the moment you have to seek European
Union law in four separate treaties, it's time we brought it all together.
HUMPHRYS: And you are in favour,
your party is in favour of giving the European Charter of Fundamental Rights
legal status. That would inevitably lead to more EU legislation, more
dilution of our own sovereignty.
CAMPBELL: No, not at all. What
it would do it would give citizens of the European Union, where their interests
were being prejudiced by the European Union, the right to go first of all
to their own domestic court and thereafter to the European Court. It's
exactly the sort of rights which we presently enjoy under the European
Convention of Human Rights.
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook, obviously
what underlies the question is unease about closer European integration,
dilution of Britain's sovereignty and all that sort of thing. You said
in 1998, that the high-tide of European integration was over. And yet,
what are we seeing as we speak, we're seeing Mr. Schroeder saying, the
German Chancellor saying exactly the opposite, we've got a speech tomorrow
I gather from Mr. Jospin of France saying exactly the opposite, they are
seeking greater and greater integration and ever closer union, so what
happened to your hopes, if that's what they were, of only two years ago.
COOK: Well, from what I understand
of Mr. Jospin's speech tomorrow, he's actually going to reject Chancellor
Schroeder's proposal for a ...
HUMPHRYS: ...he's going to talk
about the Federation isn't he?
COOK: Of nation states, of nation
states though, and he is stressing the nation states and it is of course
President Chirac who has said what we are seeking to create here is not
a United States of Europe but also to achieve a United Europe of States,
and over those last few years, yes, the balance has moved back to the influence
of member states. The big projects we have launched over the last two
years such as an economic reform has not been achieved by more regulation,
more majority decision-making, but by the co-ordination between us and
agreement and the peer review which we go through when we meet again and
look what we've done. But you know, I, what I actually said, John, if
you want to go back to what I said in 1998 was Maastricht was a high point
of integration. Francis was of course the Conservative minister who signed
the Maastricht Treaty and what I would like to hear from him, is why is
it, having been the man who signed up to what has been the biggest volume
and majority of voting that we have actually seen in the history of the
European Union, he now is coming out against his own handiwork, and the
reason for that is not because he has changed his mind but because Conservative
Party prejudice have changed.
MAUDE: No, Robin is, as so often
precisely wrong.
COOK: ...you did sign it. Let's
get this right Francis, you did sign it, you did sign it.
MAUDE: Yes.
COOK: ...I was not wrong.
MAUDE: That's a shattering revelation
which has only been public for the last nine years. But of course that
the Maastricht Treaty did take forward the process of majority voting,
although it has been outdone by what Labour has agreed at Amsterdam and
at Nice, because actually the total number of vetoes that have been lost
way exceeds what was done at Maastricht. But if Robin Cook is right, that
much of the advance, much of the benefit that Britain has had from the
European Union in the last few years has not been achieved through majority
voting, then why does he always argue that it's in Britain's interest to
give up the veto in so many more areas, thirty-one or thirty-nine depending
how you calculate it, areas, of the Nice Treaty, why does he say that's
so obviously in our interest.
COOK: Those areas where we did
agree to majority voting in Nice fall into two categories. One that don't
affect us because we are not part of it, such as the positions on the Shanging****
Agreement, all those areas where we want to get rid of other people's vetoes,
and we were successful at Nice, we got rid for instance of the French veto
on protectionism of external trade. We got rid of the Spanish and Portuguese
veto on tougher control of the budget. Now that actually is in Britain's
interest. Now what I would like to hear from Francis because he says he's
going to renegotiate the Nice Treaty, for the last six months he's been
unable to tell me exactly what it is he's going to renegotiate...
MAUDE: Interruption
COOK: ...well then tell us which
of those vetoes are you going to restore to France, you're going to give
back to ...
HUMPHRYS: Alright, but don't make
it too, if you've got a great list...
MAUDE: I'll tell you precisely.
We say that the process of integration has gone far enough.
HUMPHRYS: That's not answering
his question...
MAUDE: ...we would not agree, we
would not agree to any extension of qualified majority voting. The one
thing that will damage European Unity at this stage is simply to extend
the areas in which the majority can impose its will on the minority. That's
a recipe for discord and disharmony.
HUMPHRYS: Alright, let people judge
whether you gave us the detail, but as far as Ming's, Ming Campbell's point
earlier, not a single country, let alone a single party supports you in
your wish to renegotiate these treaties, it simply couldn't happen, could
it.
MAUDE: But these things, these
things have to be done by unanimity and if we were elected we would have
a mandate to renegotiate Nice Treaty. The idea...
INTERRUPTION
CAMPBELL: ...answer of Francis
Maude's even today, because what he's suggesting is that he would block
the treaty, the purpose of which is to bring enlargement to the European
Union and bring into the European Union Poland and Hungary and the Czech
Republic and all the other countries, the former Warsaw Pact countries,
desperately anxious to become part of the European Union so that they can
secure not just their economic future but their democratic future as well.
This is a very very revealing answer. Can I say under qualified majority
voting...
HUMPHRYS: Let finish this point
and then...
CAMPBELL: Very quickly on qualified
majority voting, one of the areas in which the veto was given up was the
pensions of employees of the European Court. Now it doesn't seem to me
that Britain's interests rest in continuing to have a veto over issues
like that and it is certainly in Britain's interests if in relation to
the provision of financial services and the provision of transport, qualified
majority voting applies, because that will allow our efficient financial
services and our transport operators the chance to enhance and improve
their economic performance throughout the rest of the Union.
HUMPHRYS: Right, well deal if you
would Francis Maude with the main point that Mr. Campbell made there which
is that you would block the treaty and therefore you would block widening
of the community of the European Union.
MAUDE: Just on the point about
the pension rights, actually that wasn't given away at Nice....
HUMPHRYS: ...go with the other
bigger one then...
MAUDE: ...that was done at Maastricht,
it was one of the trifling things that ...
HUMPHRYS: ...deal with the more
important one of enlargement...
MAUDE: ...that was a canard raised
by Tony Blair and it's quite simply untrue. The point about enlargement
and Nice, the bulk of the Treaty of Nice is not about enlargement, it is
about integration about deepening it, it is not about widening the European
Union. There are a few things which are arguably to do with enlargement,
to do with the size of the commission, the size of the parliament, the
re-weighting of votes, and I've said, and I've said it only this week,
we would agree happily on day one of being in power to put into effect
those provisions immediately and to ratify those immediately. That could
actually speed up enlargement, not hold it up, I think it's lamentable
that enlargement has already been held up as long as it has.
INTERRUPTION
HUMPHRYS: One sentence Robin Cook,
quickly.
COOK: What I want to know, is what
are you going to do, when you turn up only one week after the election
at the European Summit and all the other fourteen say, no we are not going
to renegotiate. You said it had to be done by unanimity, you're the only
one asking for it, none of the others are going to support you in it, what
are you going to do then? Either you have to climb down, or you have to
start the process of the exit door from the European Union, the process
of ....
HUMPHRYS: Alright, which takes
us I think into our next question. Anna Morson who is a housekeeper companion.
ANNA MORSON: Why are none of the major
parties prepared to admit that we have already lost too much of our sovereignty
to the European Union. Isn't the only answer now for Britain to withdraw
from the EU completely?
HUMPHRYS: I'll come to you two
later but Ming Campbell first on this one.
CAMPBELL: No, I think the consequences
of withdrawal which those who argue for withdrawal very rarely try even
to estimate would be absolutely enormous and the effect upon our political
and our economic interests would be very very damaging indeed. We had a
referendum in 1975 on the principle of membership of what was then the
European Community. The people in the United Kingdom by a very substantial
majority voted in favour of that and I do not believe that it would be
in our interest to withdraw. Not least because if we did, what I was talking
about earlier in relation to the Single Currency, we'd find ourselves a
kind of offshore island of the European Union, directly effected by what
it did but with no influence over it whatsoever and those who argue that
there's some kind of future for us in the North American free trade area,
arguments you find more frequently in the British newspapers, controlled
by citizens of North American countries, do not understand the extent to
which if we were in such an arrangement we would be wholly and completely
dominated by the United States. And if anyone ever says we should NAFTA,
just ask two questions: one, would we be able to resist genetically modified
food being imported into this country - answer no. And the second question,
would we be able to export our beef to the United States - the answer again
is no. There are no advantages for us in being members of the North American
Free Trade Area.
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, isn't
the logic of your position if you had to go on adopting, accepting European
laws of which you did not approve. Isn't the logic of your position ultimately
that you'd have to withdraw?
MAUDE: Well I think if there were
a perception that we are absolutely on a one-way street which leads only
ever further towards the European super state with ever more integration,
then I think there would be a growing concern that Britain should not sustain
its membership of the European Union. It's that that I would..
HUMPHRYS: and that would be your
view?
MAUDE: That's what I want to resist.
I regard that as a danger and I don't agree that it's in Britain's interest
to withdraw.
HUMPHRYS: Sorry can I just clarify
that for one moment. That is a danger which obviously..which you say is
entirely conceivable. It is one that you might not, if you were the government
of the country, be able to resist. You might have to go along with that?
MAUDE: I would..I argue that Britain
should be in the European Union and be actively engaged and leading the
debate in the European Union but there is a growing concern about the ever..the
direction of Britain's involvement which is under a Labour government going
ever closer towards being submerged in a super state and, you know, I think
if politicians don't accept that there is a case for some powers being
returned to member states, some decisions which are currently taken at
Brussels, being taken at national level, then I think that feeling will
be reinforced. Now it should be, at the very least, a two way street, so
if there is more decision taking at the central level then there should
be some coming back and yet I don't hear either Robin Cook or Ming Campbell
talking about that. And Robin Cook's talk about the next IGC and they
are going to look at...we've heard all that. Where are the government's
proposals for specific things to be taken..decisions to be taken at national
level rather than Brussels. Does he agree with what we are saying about
the Common Agriculture Policy?
HUMPHRYS: I'm going to take it
that he does because every politician of the land seems to think the Common
Agriculture Policy is a load of rubbish.
MAUDE: ...but he hasn't said that.
HUMPHRYS: But let me ask...
MAUDE: ..he hasn't said that.
HUMPHRYS: He has with respect to....
MAUDE: ...he talked about reform,
he hasn't talked about more decisions taken at national level which is
the key change that needs to be made.
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook.
COOK: We've been arguing for some
degree of re-nationalisation of the Common Agriculture Policy for some
years, we did it in Berlin which was back in 1998 and that has been our
position ever since. But we were successful in getting a forum agreed from
2004 which is going to look at this balance between the member states and
between the European institutions and we have been successful also in getting
Tony Blair's proposal for the national parliaments to be involved to be
also included in that judgement. I don't actually think that the Conservatives
at Nice could have secured that because they would not have had the allies
to get...
HUMPHRYS: Alright, can I...
COOK: John, can I just finish.
I am still waiting on an answer for what Francis Maude is going to do,
seven days after polling day when they have...
HUMPHRYS: Alright, you've made
that point...
COOK: ..but we haven't had the
answer.
HUMPHRYS: Let me just ask you a
very quick question Robin Cook, if the advantages of European Union Membership
are as manifest as you say they are, how come so many people, including
many people in this audience, are fed up with it and want out of it.
COOK: If you look at the polls
John, there is substantial support from members of the European Union because
people understand..
HUMPHRYS: A lot against too.
COOK: Indeed, but this is a democracy.
There is a substantial support there for it. We did have a referendum John,
as a matter of fact the Labour Party is the only government that has ever
given the people a referendum on Europe..
MAUDE: You were against...
COOK: ..and the people. But we
want to make a success..
HUMPHRYS: You were opposed to it
yourself at the time of course.
COOK: But that's twenty-five years
ago. So much has happened since then John. Our lagers have changed, we
sell a majority of our exports to the European Union. That is why we have
to be there when they make the rules on those exports. If we were not there
we would export so much, we wouldn't have the same influence.
HUMPHRYS: Let me move on to Diana
McGuirk who is a designer and who has I think another question on Europe.
DIANA McGUIRK: Yes, do the panel agree
that it makes sense for the countries in the European Union to co-operate
on issues of defence?
HUMPHRYS: To co-operate more on
defence I take it, you mean more than we are doing at the moment, right.
Ming Campbell.
CAMPBELL: Definitely and in fact
the speeches coming out of Washington in the course of the last week make
it clear that there is a very substantial sea-change about to take place
in the defence and security policies of the United States and in those
circumstances, not only is it desirable for Europe to take more to do with
its own defence, it may well become a matter of necessity. And we can do
all of that, entirely consistent with our membership of NATO which has
been the most successful defensive alliance in history, if we ensure that
NATO has what's called the right of first refusal, that the EU doesn't
get engaged until NATO decides this is an operation it doesn't want to
take part in, if we ensure that operational and strategic planning rest
in NATO, that there are no competing structures being set up in the European
Union. And the one thing which is clear if you talk to Americans, whether
of Republican or Democratic persuasion, it is very clear indeed that the
days when we in Europe could automatically assume that the Americans would
come and become engaged in every conflict, whatever its cause and whatever
its consequences, these days have gone. In order to provide for our own
security you might say there's a moral obligation to do more, in order
to provide for our own security, we must have a more coherent defence policy
in Europe and the European Rapid Reaction Force in my view is the way in
which to implement that obligation.
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude, you don't
think that?
MAUDE: No I do. I agreed that
there should be more defence co-operation in Europe. We've argued this
for years.
CAMPBELL: Reaction force, specifically.
MAUDE: Well, but I mean, it is
a very important point. We're not against defence co-operation in Europe.
We think Europe's countries should do more in terms of defence capability
and co-operate more. We've argued for this for years, you know, back into
the eighties we were arguing for that. What we object to about what Robin
Cook has put together and he tells us that he actually wrote the documents,
is that it is actually competing and it is designed by some of those involved
with it, as Tony Blair actually admitted, designed to compete with NATO.
HUMPHRYS: By it you mean the Rapid
Reaction Force, just so everybody clear.
MAUDE: Well can I just, I mean
Ming Campbell said of course it would be very difficult if NATO didn't
have the right to first refusal. Well NATO doesn't have the right of first
refusal. It just doesn't and the French Chief of Defence Staff said absolutely
clearly, NATO does not have the right of first refusal. What the document
says and you know this Robin because you tell us you wrote, is that if,
it says, if NATO itself is not engaged, that does not give NATO a right
of first refusal.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
MAUDE: Can I just deal with the
other point he makes because it's absolutely crucial.
HUMPHRYS: Can we just deal with
that one first, the point, because, the man you're referring to, the Chief
of Staff, is General Jean Pierre Kelche. He said European politicians need
to know what's going on. They need to be able to select options and then
conduct operations, why should we have to go through NATO. In other words
Robin Cook, he clearly thinks that you won't be going through NATO.
COOK: Well, General Kelche was
of course on your own distinguished Today programme, he was asked, would
this operation be independent of NATO and he said specifically, no it would
not. And Francis Maude is splitting hairs. We will only have a European
led operation where NATO has decided not to lead that operation.
INTERRUPTION
COOK: That is exactly the point,
moreover, Britain will only take part if we ourselves decide on our own
national sovereign decision that we will take part. But let's get back
to reality John. The truth is over the past decade, we have seen repeated
crisis within particularly the Balkans, we have seen the need for an intervention
for peacekeeping and humanitarian reasons and frankly we have not had the
resources to do it as well as it should. In Bosnia for years we were unable
to halt the ethnic cleansing. Indeed while the Conservatives in office,
there were eight-thousand people massacred at Srebrenica because we could
not provide a strong enough peace keeping force. We would have been much
better off if we had then what we will have in the future, which is sixty-thousand
troops available for deployment in sixty days, when called upon from the
nation states. That will make a contribution to stability in Europe, to
security in Europe and that's got to be good for Europe and good for NATO.
CAMPBELL: May I make a ....
HUMPHRYS: Very quick point, Ming
Campbell.
CAMPBELL: The very quick point
I want to make is this, is that we should not assume that we can do all
this necessarily on the same levels of expenditure on defence, if we're
going to do this, we may have to accept that defence expenditure will require
to be increased. That's not discussed, but if we're going to have the
capacity which the rapid reaction force appears to feel is necessary for
its success then we may have to spend more money on defence.
HUMPHRYS: Alright one sentence
from you.
MAUDE: Capability is absolutely
crucial, but there is nothing in this that increases capability. All it
does...
INTERRUPTION
MAUDE: ...can I just deal with,
there's a crucial point...
HUMPHRYS: If you make it one sentence
you can, otherwise we're going to have to move to the next question. Go
on.
MAUDE: Ming Campbell says it's
fine if it doesn't set up competing operation structures. The EU as a
result of this has its own military committee, its own military staff,
its own military headquarters, it specifically does have competing...
HUMPHRYS: ...okay, let's...
MAUDE: ...it's completely independent
of NATO.
HUMPHRYS: Let me take the next
question, a related question away, Jo Dobson, who's a teacher.
JO DOBSON: I am worried that America's
plans for a Missile Defence System are a threat to world peace. Which
of the parties is going to be prepared to stand up to the Americans and
make sure that the system is never built?
HUMPHRYS: Francis Maude it won't
be you because you approve of NMD.
MAUDE: Yes, I don't regard the
Americans as people who are in the field of defence and world affairs we
have to stand up to, they are our friends, they're our allies, we don't
have to competing with them, we don't regard them as a threat. So far
as Ballistic Missile Defence is concerned, I take what you may think is
an absurdly simplistic view, if you think it may be going to rain and you've
got the option of having an umbrella and not having an umbrella, it seems
to be plain common sense to choose to have the umbrella. We know that
there are..there is nuclear proliferation at the moment, there are a number
of rogue states who have nuclear capability, the capability potentially
to dispatch weapons of mass destruction over a long period if there is....and
we don't know yet whether there is definitively going to be a system that
will actually deliver successful defence but if there is, then what we
are saying is we support that in principle, we would want to work in principle,
to work with the Americans in developing it and we would want to benefit
from it. It doesn't seem to be a very difficult issue.
HUMPHRYS: Ming Campbell.
CAMPBELL: Our manifesto says we
are opposed to the current proposals on this topic, if you are looking
for a party that maybe...apart from us, you look at the Democratic Party
in the United States because of course, now that Senator Jeffords has defected
or become an Independent, the Republicans no longer have an overall majority
in the Senate and the new leader, majority leader in the Senate, Democrat
Tom Daschel is on record as expressing very considerable reservations,
so it may be even in the United States that there will be considerable
anxiety and that it will not proceed as fast as some people would like.
My view is quite simply this, that what the Americans appear to have been
proposing was something of a unilateral nature, withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty of 1972, since then we have built quite an important architecture
based on mutuality, based on collective approach to these matters. If
you pull out the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, you make the rest of these
treaties very much more difficult to enforce. If what the Americans had
been suggesting was something which was collective and mutual then I think
it would have been entitled to a far more sympathetic hearing.
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook.
COOK: Well there is a threat to
world peace at the present time, a threat to peace and that is from the
proliferation of ballistic missile technology and I have to say as Foreign
Secretary that does worry me greatly and that's why we have proposed to
Colin Powell that we work together to try and provide the same barriers
to missile technology and proliferation that we already have on nuclear
proliferation. Now the United States has as part of the response to that
new threat adopted its proposals for a National Missile Defence. What
we have urged upon the Bush Administration is that if they wish to go down
this road, then they must do so through close consultation with allies
and through dialogue with Russia and I agree, to this extent with Ming
Campbell that it is important that if this proceeds, then it should proceed
by agreement and not by confrontation.
HUMPHRYS: But you are broadly in
support are you because Sir Alistair Campbell, who speaks for the Prime
Minister of course when asked that question said yes.
COOK: I prefer to listen to the
Prime Minister if you'll forgive me John and what the Prime Minister said
is we will decide when we are asked the question. We are not, like the
Conservatives going to say the answer is yes now tell us the question,
a lot will depend of course on how that dialogue with Russia proceeds.
HUMPHRYS: So you haven't decided.
COOK: We have not been asked and
we don't know what we are being asked yet.
HUMPHRYS: All right so Alistair
Campbell knows but no one else in the government knows right. He hasn't
shared it with the Foreign Secretary.
Right Surrinder Mehra
who is retired I believe.
SURRINDER MEHRA: We are still imposing sanctions
on Iraq and we have sold arms to countries like Indonesia, many ordinary
people are therefore continuing to suffer as a result of British policy.
So do the parties think we now have an ethical foreign policy?
HUMPHRYS: Do you Mr Maude?
MAUDE: I think all, I'd very astonished
if any Foreign Secretary went out saying I propose to have an unethical
foreign policy and, I mean, I thought what was interesting about Robin
Cook's declaration early on that he was going to have an ethical dimension
to his foreign policy was that it seemed to imply somehow that all the
other dimensions were going to be unethical. I would propose to have a
policy all of which the elements of which were ethical and I think the
whole thing made him and Britain look ludicrous, particularly when we were
faced with the Chinese President visiting this country and decisions were
taken by the police after we know, after discussions with the Foreign Office
to arrest and suppress lawful demonstrations against the occupation of
Tibet. Now you may or may not agree with those protestors, but I would
have thought we ought to value rather more strongly than the government
seemed to the right of people in this country to express their views vigorously.
I thought the impression that gave of Britain, particularly against the
backdrop of Robin Cook crowing about his ethical dimension to his foreign
policy, made Britain look shamed and I think it was shocking.
HUMPHRYS: Ming Campbell?
CAMPBELL: Well I thought Britain
was rather more shamed when it emerged that the previous Conservative Government
deceived the House of Commons in relation to the export of arms to Iraq
as was found by Sir Richard Scott after his long running inquiry into the
matter. But let me make this point, I welcomed what Robin Cook said about
a foreign policy with an ethical dimension and he knows because I have
expressed this to him before. I have been disappointed at the way in which
it has been implemented and, in particular, I was disappointed that we
went on supplying Hawk aircraft to Indonesia long after we should have
done so, we went on supplying aircraft parts to Mr Mugabe's Zimbabwe long
after we should have been willing to do so and in relation to Iraq, last
September at our party conference, we agreed that it was time now to lift
the non military sanctions against the people of Iraq, they are the only
people who have suffered, Saddam Hussein is still there, it's made no difference
to him or the coterie who surround and support him. Maintain sanctions
in relation to military and dual use equipment yes but remove the sanctions
on non military equipment for the interests of the people of Iraq, the
ordinary citizens but also to take away from Saddam Hussein the enormously
valuable propaganda weapon which he has used ruthlessly and with such success
throughout the Arab capitals of the Middle East. It's time for a total
re-think on our policy and there are some encouraging signs because Colin
Powell in the United States, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
now appears to have embarked upon a re-examination of our policy towards
Iraq, it's long over due but I welcome it.
HUMPHRYS: Robin Cook the question
dealt with both arms to countries like Indonesia and Iraq of course, ethical
foreign policy?
COOK: I think it is very important
that human rights should be at the heart of foreign policy and I believe
we have done that. If it had not been for our commitment and principle
we would not have taken the resolute stand we did against ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo, which brought about the fall of Milosevic and the most rapid
refugee return we have seen in post war history. It's because of that
commitment to make sure that people like Milosevic are held to account
in the future that we transformed Britain into one of the leading advocates
of international criminal court and the last few hours of this parliament
I passed that International Criminal Court Bill that will enable it to
start up, Francis Maude and the Conservative Party voted against it. On
the question of arms exports, I was actually quite pleased to hear Lord
Justice Scott who led that inquiry into the Arms to Iraq say on the Today
programme that he had looked at our annual report on arms exports and he
was amazed at the new transparency we were providing. We have the most
open, most transparent reporting system in arms exports now of any country
in the world.
HUMPHRYS: But you won't allow parliament
to scrutinise arms sales before they take place and you yourself once said
any war for the past three decades has been fought by poor countries with
weapons surrounded by rich countries, do you no longer believe that?
COOK: No I do believe it, very
important that we should regulate the arms strength to the poor countries,
that is why actually this government has taken action in saying we will
not provide any export credits to the poorest countries to buy weapons,
why we ourselves will be tougher in making sure, as we have done with our
new regulations, that you cannot use weapons for repression and only next
month we will be going to New York to take part in the conference to control
the small arms trade, vital that we do so because that is what has been
killing so many people.
HUMPHRYS: I'll stop you there.
Robin Cook, Francis Maude, Ming Campbell thank you all very much indeed.
And that's it for this
week. Next week we will have our Deputy Leaders debate and we are hoping
to be joined by John Prescott, Michael Ancram and Alan Beith for our last
election debate before the big day. In the meantime if you are on the
internet don't forget about our web side, until the same time next Sunday,
good afternoon.
23
FoLdEd
|