Tag: Michael Ancram

The speech made by Michael Ancram on 9 May 2022.

“How times have changed! A few years ago critical questioning of the future shape, direction or structures of Europe would have been condemned as an anti-European act. Either you were for ‘le projet’ or you were against it. There was no middle ground.

“Today Europe itself is talking about its future. Fifty years on the European Union is facing a sort of midlife crisis; a crisis of identity, a crisis of purpose and a crisis of authority. A crisis acknowledged even by the Laeken Declaration. There is a sudden realisation that not all is well.

“The pathetically low turnouts in the last European elections. The negative votes in the Irish and Danish referendums. The re-emergence of extreme national politics, particularly in France. The growing popular dissatisfaction with and feelings of alienation from European Institutions. The European economy presents a far from rosy long term picture. There is suddenly a fluttering in the European dovecote.

“Stopped in its tracks is the arrogance which has so marked the European Commission over recent years. Gone the sense of inevitable and unstoppable progression. Both replaced by confused rhetoric. The same voices which recently contemptuously dismissed American policy as “simplistic” now plead anxiously for the US to resist the ‘unilateralist temptation’.

“Suddenly there is talk of consultation. The Convention on the future Shape of Europe. But there is little evidence that the fundamental problem, the deficit in the democratic process at a European level, the alienation of people from institutions, has even begun to be addressed, or whether the means for doing so even exist. What is certain is that Europe is uncertain, more uncertain about itself than it has been since its inception.

“We see a demographic time-bomb in Europe which the EU has failed to address. A growing, technological gap between European countries and the US. A need for greater innovation and deregulation, as growing unemployment threatens the livelihood of millions of people. It is against this backdrop of economic failure that we must begin to consider the structural failures of the EU as it stands today.

“Over the coming year we in the Conservative Party will be developing a clear strategic view of Britain’s Foreign Policy at the start of the twenty-first century, and defining British interests within the international arena.

“It is with this in mind that I address the issue of the EU today. We will apply this rigorous process to the EU as well, asking how it fits or should fit with Britain’s and other countries’ national interests. We will address that fundamental question as to the role the EU should fulfil in the 21st century. What should it do, and what should it not do? How can we make it more effective for and more relevant to British citizens?

“I do not propose to answer those questions in detail tonight. There is much work to be done first. I intend to analyse closely where Europe finds itself today. We will identify those areas requiring rigorous examination and consideration, and where necessary reform.

“That is why we call today for a fundamental review of the way the EU is currently working. We believe that this is a necessary precursor to genuine constructive reform. If the current EU process is not prepared to undertake such a fundamental review, we will look for alternative and credible ways of doing so. It is an opportunity which must not be missed if we are to reshape Europe to meet the genuine challenges of the new century.

“The time is ripe for a constructive but realistic debate about the future structures of Europe. It is a debate in which we are happy to take part.

“The current uncertainty creates above all a crisis of identity. We therefore have to start with the very basic question as to what precisely we mean by Europe.

“‘Europe’ is a concept. It is a collective, broad-brush description, not a nationality. It is a geographical entity, rather than a “land” with the true sense of belonging that flows from that term.

“How do we define Europe? Just look at the multiplicity of geographical descriptions and definitions. Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Middle Europe, Eastern Europe, Mediterranean Europe, Central Europe, Slavonic Europe, Scandinavian Europe. I could go on.

“This multiplicity of descriptions of Europe also hides a massive diversity of languages, peoples, cultures, economies, and histories. Some aspects are shared. Many more are different. One has but to look at the patchwork quilt of the history of Europe. It underlines the infinite diversity in our continent which cannot be straight jacketed by simplistic description.

“Indeed the history of European unity, until the Second World War, was a history of military subjugation, an empirical aspiration that could never succeed when pitted against the diversity and national sentiment that existed within Europe – and still exists today.

“The origins of the EU lie in the conflict that wracked Europe between 1939 and 1945. The leaders of the nations of Europe determined it should never happen again. The resulting Common Market was based on consent, around a “bottom up” principle which sought to build links and co-operation at the lowest levels and with NATO’s help it worked. Europe has seen an unprecedented period of peace and has been much the better for it.

“However, since its inception we have also seen an seemingly inexorable move towards full European unity, as “harmonisation” has stealthily been imposed upon us all.

“Despite the subsidiarity principle that decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level, the impacts of European integration continue to weave their way into the nooks and crannies of everyday life.

“In the Common Agricultural Policy, for example, a vitally important sector of our national economies continues to be dominated by an inefficient European structure. We see at the same time an increasing incidence of fraud in EU budgets. We see a lack of responsiveness to local needs, inevitable when the minutiae of a system are essentially determined by a supranational authority.

“The endemic tendency to wish to encompass everything has led to the EU being regarded with a growing sense of distance and irrelevance by vast numbers of its voters. The lack of democratic accountability, compounded by new directives constantly being imposed from above, only serves to add to popular alienation from “Europe”. The need for reform and change is now more pressing than ever.

“The EU stands at an important crossroads in its development. Recent political events in France stands as a stark warning of the potential outcome of that sense of detachment from a remote political elite felt by millions of people across Europe.

“In this information age, with more well informed and empowered citizens than ever before, the urgent challenge is to correct the democratic deficit and to bring the real interests of people back to centre-stage.

“Reform must not be a one-way track. There are a variety of options, each of them with adherents and arguments in their favour.

“There are those whose sense of disillusionment with the EU and growing supranationalism lead them to support complete withdrawal from the EU, either with the intention of going it alone or as a full member of NAFTA.

“Diametrically opposed to them, there are those in favour of building an integrated United States of Europe, an “advanced supranational democracy which must be strengthened” – whatever that might mean – , even more closely linked than at present, with a central government presiding over a common foreign and security policy, a common economic and fiscal policy, underpinned by a single currency, and with a common social policy.

“And there is a third option. A partnership of sovereign nations, bound by the single market and the rules of free trade, but otherwise working at different levels of participation and involvement, tailoring common ventures and aspirations to the national interest and the national modus operandi. A Europe for all seasons, and all national traits and imperatives, which recognises and maximises national strengths in a constructive way.

“Let me look at each of these options in turn.

“To withdraw from the EU, either to go it alone or to engage in a NAFTA-like trade area, would be a damaging course, forfeiting authority and benefit. We benefit from our trade with Europe.

“Europe may well be facing economic problems. It is however certainly not in our interests for these to continue. Moreover our trade is vitally tied up with Europe and affected by European legislation. Norway and Switzerland, as members of the European Economic Area, must comply with European law, but they have no influence over these laws ands regulations. Withdrawal would replicate this weakness for us.

“On the other hand the supranational approach, suggesting that institutionalised cooperation can achieve everything, and therefore must pool everything, is totally missing the point. More can be achieved through voluntary co-operation than through enforced conformity.

“In the face of current European uncertainty Tony Blair’s government might appear ambivalent. Far from it. While their language at home may be tailored to create the impression that the Europe of Nations is still an option for them, their language abroad and more importantly their actions within Europe tell a different tale.

“Regrettably what happened at Nice was both a functional failure and a failure of vision by our Government. Having rejected the vast bulk of extensions to QMV proposed by the French Presidency prior to Nice, most were meekly accepted.

“A simple accession process, acknowledged by Robin Cook as necessary for enlargement, turned in to a treaty which had little to do with enlargement, which we passionately favour, and everything to do with political integration.

“The Nice Treaty further alienated people from the institutions of the European Union and may, perversely, as we warned, imperil or delay enlargement.

“The failure to concentrate on the core objective of enlargement was symptomatic of a government which talks of constructive engagement but fails to come up with actual policies which address the real challenges of an enlarged EU.

“The rhetoric of integration is also there, on record, for all to see. Speaking in Warsaw in 2000 Tony Blair declared the need for a Europe “strong and united”. In Birmingham last year he was quite open about it, saying that a “more effective common foreign and security policy…is vital”. He obviously learnt little from the farce of trying to achieve a common European line in the aftermath of 11 September.

“At the same time Jack Straw calls for an ever greater pooling of our sovereignty.

“Their deeds and words all point, not to a desire to make the EU work for the citizens of its member states, but to their desire to submerge British sovereignty and that of other European countries in an ever more centralised Europe. They may work by stealth, but their agenda remains the creation of a supranational Europe.

“It is the wrong direction for Europe, and we reject it. It threatens not only the end of popular sovereignty, but also a further divorce of the political process from its legitimacy – the people themselves. It either presages the unacceptable tyranny of the majority imposing common policies on reluctant member countries, or the equally unacceptable tyranny of the lowest common denominator. Neither is acceptable.

“The coercion of conformity and harmonisation would stifle the diversity that is the very essence of Europe. As a result of a common interest rate, a single currency and a single fiscal policy, inevitable internal tensions would arise. Division and internal discord would ferment from the forcing together of very different economies, bringing in to the open the threat of new axes as the largest members push ahead with their ambitions at the expense of the interest of their smaller partners. We have already had a taste of this when Ireland was reprimanded under the growth and stability pact, whereas Germany for a similar ‘offence’ was not.

“These tensions will become even more apparent after enlargement. EU enlargement is a project that has always enjoyed the total support of the Conservative Party. But we must also recognise the need to plan properly for it.

“Already such tensions are beginning to show in the failure to face up to the shortcomings of the Common Agricultural Policy, and in the increasingly sharp exchanges between the accession countries and Brussels as the realisation dawns that the EU has taken insufficient account of their needs with regard to structural funds and agricultural subsidies. This is a salutary warning of the internal divisions we risk if we do not move swiftly to reform.

“We want to see genuine and constructive reform. We do not see it in Romano Prodi’s ‘advanced supranational democracy’. A supranational European state would undermine the goodwill and genuine co-operation required in Europe. It would be harking back. It would be building a bloc after the era of blocs is ended.

“It would also be naively ambitious. To attempt to be a superpower bloc, rivalling America, is foolish. America is a sovereign superpower with vast resources. Europe is not. We need America far more than America needs us. We must stick to the partnership of Europe and America. We must reject the anti-American rhetoric of some leading Europeans who want to make it Europe or America.

“Our constructive approach to European reform will start with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. The events of 11 September were a wake-up call. The call to Europe was very clear. It reminded us once again that the comfortable and stable world of cold war blocs was over. Mass equilibrium, based on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, was ended. The threats were different. The friendships and alliances needed to meet them were different. The world into which the European Union had been born and raised was gone. The European mindset has to change.

“The message of 11 September to Europe was ‘adaptability and flexibility’. That is why we root our approach to the reform debate firmly on the ground of the Europe of sovereign Nations.

“We need to use the current debate on the future structure and shape of Europe to look at what is working and what is not. That which is working and is consistent with the Europe of the future should be preserved and strengthened. That which is not working, or is out of date or is no longer consistent with the evolving nature of Europe should be reformed or discarded. Anything less than this rigorous approach will be a sham.

“The Treaties, the ‘acquis’, the directives, should all be open to re-examination to assess their effectiveness and continuing relevance – and open to change if necessary. A genuine review and reform process cannot object to revisiting those elements which appear either not to be working or not working as well as they should. There can be no sacred cows, no no-go areas, no sealed vaults.

“Such a ‘keep out’ attitude would prove the enemy of genuine reform. Fortunately there is growing recognition in other European countries that at least some of the treaties may need reform. Only Britain’s Government seem to see the Treaties as untouchable totems of commitment to Europe. It is massively short-sighted. It assumes that once a regulation is in place it will remain effective through all circumstances, and will not be affected by the changing international and economic situation.

“By adapting to change and revisiting the treaties, the regulations and if necessary the ‘acquis’ and in making a constructive assessment of their continuing relevance and value to people as opposed to institutions, we can hope to move once again towards a ‘bottom-up’ Europe. A Europe that starts with the needs and aspirations of the people of Europe, not the ambitions of its bureaucrats, and which can once again make itself relevant to people’s lives.

“Relevant does not mean meddling in every nook and cranny of every day life but being a useful engine to increase the economic prosperity and success of European countries. People who currently feel distant from the EU must be convinced of the benefits to them. Our constructive review must ask the central questions. Do these treaties, these directives, this ‘acquis’ still serve the real interests of the peoples of France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and so on. And above all do they serve the interests of the people of Britain.

“For instance the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This is a concept that will not work and should be abandoned. The history of the CFSP is a already a trail of failures. Re-buff over Israel, inaction over Zimbabwe, division and delay after 11 September, and the inevitable undermining of NATO. All demonstrate the inflexible, unwieldy nature of the CFSP and show that it is simply not practical.

“The Rome Treaty preamble demanding ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ requires further thought. Such wording sits uneasily in today’s world and we should be prepared to consider rephrasing it in a way which better reflects the network, flexible, nature of modern international co-operation.

“We need to reconsider the role and powers of the Commission in initiating policy, questioning whether this is the most effective, or appropriate, way to operate.

“Coincidentally it already appears that the Commission is in fact losing power to the Council Secretariat and to a mish-mash of other agencies and committees. Whilst this loss of power by the Commission is not something to be mourned, we need to consider how the structural distribution of powers can be more effectively organised to ensure greater democratic accountability, rather than simply shifting the power around internally.

“We need also to look closely at those elements of the EU which are working but which can be improved.

“The Single Market has the potential to bring economic benefit, but there is work to be done to make it function more effectively and fairly. We will continue to work towards the completion of the single market. We will continue to press for further deregulation and improved competitiveness.

“We must recognise that the world’s economy is now global. In a world of increasingly fierce economic competition, ineffective and burdensome regulations hinder rather than help economic success. Companies today often find they are being sent out to compete in the global marketplace with one hand tied behind their back. The distinction now needs to be clearly made between what is necessary to provide a level playing field, and what is an unnecessary burden.

“At the heart of EU reform must lie “a democratic process which uphold the rights of all member states, big and small, and guarantees the rights of the people and of every citizen”. These goals, set out by Romano Prodi in April, cannot be reached by the road to integration or his ‘advanced supranational democracy’. Centralisation and integration are inimical to them. Reform can only begin to achieve these goals if it is firmly rooted in the domestic democratic processes of each member state. It could encompass the prospect of the Commission agenda being shaped by national legislatures.

“Our democratically elected national parliaments can best, certainly better than anything else in the EU, interpret the national interest and represent the will of the people. It is at a national level that people still feel the greatest sense of identity, and sense of belonging. Moreover if genuine accountability is to be created in Europe, and the growing rift between the plans of the European bureaucrats who determine Europe’s agenda and the genuine wishes and will of the people who ultimately pay for the EU is to be ended, then national parliaments must remain the best channel for genuine democratic control.

“Too often, when the democratic deficit in Europe is mentioned, it is suggested that the simple answer is for the European Parliament be given more powers. This is simply shifting power within EU institutions, not returning it to the people themselves. We must return to the founding principle that the EU is the servant of the people of Europe and the national parliaments that represent them; it is not their master.

“It is too early to be specific. Genuine reform must be preceded by genuine analysis. We should hope that this will be undertaken by the Convention, although the early signs are not encouraging. There is currently too much grandiose talk of writing a constitution. There is already too much planning for further centralised structures such as a European Diplomatic Service . All of this is the antithesis of resolving the democratic deficit. It will make it deeper.

“We are open to genuine reform. Not doctrinal reform to a set agenda, but reform to build a more workable Europe to meet enlargement. Not destructive reform, but constructive reform which works for the peoples of Europe. Not theoretical reform, but reform which reconnects people with what Europe means for them.

“We want to see a Europe that looks outward rather than inward, Taking on the international economic challenges of the world rather than spending so much of its time focussed on internal bureaucratic battles.

“What I have set out today is not a detailed blueprint, nor at this stage before the in-depth analysis has been done is it intended to be. What it seeks to represent is a broad outline, a framework within which we can work on the more detailed substance of our approach to Europe, and which demonstrates our willingness to engage constructively in this vital debate.

“We are faced with a great opportunity. An opportunity to sail between the jagged Scylla of withdrawal, and the vortex of Charybdis which is the European Superpower. Both of these are concepts of the 20th century. We are looking towards the 21st century, the globalisation of economics, the new fluidity of relationships, the reality of the American superpower and the slumbering giant of China. We are looking for a Europe which will be better suited to meet these challenges. Our Europe will be agile and supple and cognisant of the national forces within it which are its strength.

“Ours is a Europe in which the strengths of each member can be deployed to the full, where non-conformity is a strength and not a weakness, where flexibility and differences of emphasis are an advantage and not a hindrance. A Europe where we can go on being British and Italian and French and German and so on, with our rich and diverse histories and culture in the knowledge that it is through this diversity that we will achieve greater strength and genuine goodwill than ever would be possible than through artificial and forced conformity.

“Partnership rather than incorporation, subtlety rather than stubbornness, and with Britain at the fulcrum. We want a Europe which will work with the grain of the world rather than against it, a Europe in which we can go on being British and doing that which is in the interests of our people.

“That is the Europe of the true partnership of nations. It is a constructive Europe, a Europe for all seasons, a Europe which can work.”

The speech made by Michael Ancram on 12 June 2002.

I am honoured by your invitation to address you. Over many years your Organisation has carried a great reputation for original thinking and for informed debate. We all honour the name and memory of Konrad Adenauer, whose vision and determination rescued Germany from the ruins of war and created a new, wider confidence in Europe as a whole. We are all in debt to him.

I want to speak today about what I see to be a new confidence and dynamism in the politics of the Centre Right in Europe. I want to talk about what is happening in the British Conservative Party as it climbs back from two massive defeats and how that fits the changing political landscape of the United Kingdom. And I want to look at the British Conservative perspective view the European Union and the changes that are taking place there too.

I ask whether there is a conservative renaissance in Britain and Europe. The signs are encouraging. Leaving aside the right wing victories in America and Australia, within Europe the picture is bright. Centre right governments in Spain, Austria and Italy; in Denmark and Norway; most recently in the Netherlands and France; looking good in the Czech Republic; and with respect and pleasure we watch the unfolding campaign here in Germany with Herr Stoiber looking set fair. Conventionally I should not comment on your elections, but I wish you every success. We are with you all the way.

We meet in changing – not to say tumultuous – times, in both world and domestic politics. 11 September served as a tragically stark reminder of the seismic shift in the international scene triggered the end of the Cold War. Gone finally are the old foreign policy certainties of the counter-balancing cold war blocs, the security reassurance of known and measured opponents. Instead we face a time of fluidity, of change, of uncertainty.

The cold war equilibrium of the symmetrical threat anchored by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has given way to the asymmetry of the international terrorist threat. The Sumo-like embrace of known enemies has given way to the fear of the invisible enemy and the unknown threat. We face the possibility of potential nuclear conflict in the Indian sub-continent and of the use of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. We live with the constant knowledge that the international terrorist with total disregard for human life – including their own – could strike anywhere at any time and with catastrophic results.

We are having to learn new rules, new methods and new objectives in pursuit of successful diplomacy; or more accurately perhaps we are having to rediscover those successfully deployed by our ancestors in the 19th Century when the world was last in so fluid a state.

What is certain is that the world has changed and that we must change with it. Obstinate certainty must be replaced by more sensitive flexibility, the arrogant exercise of power by a more subtle agility, and the coalition of security by a coalition of national interests. There is a new tide in the affairs of men sweeping across Europe and we must ride it.

Part of that tide undoubtedly is the renaissance of the Centre.

People are realising that in this changing world the rigid dogma of the left ill serves their interests. They realise that the command economy and the corporate state can no longer deliver –if they ever could – and that it is people as individuals and within their communities who know best.

The British Conservative Party under Iain Duncan Smith is changing to reflect this changing world. We as a party are seeking to show that we spring from the real world; the world as it is, not the world as we would necessarily like it to be. We seek to cut through spin and to face realities. And one of the starkest realities is that while our country prospers from its increasing wealth and burgeoning technology, it is still a country in which we witness daily the growing phenomenon of those who are being left behind.

These are the new vulnerable, those who cannot get their children a decent education, or cannot get medical treatment when they need it, or who live in fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. These are our people. We are a party that genuinely cares about helping the vulnerable in our society. Nor is this position opportunist. Over 150 years ago the towering Conservative figure of Benjamin Disraeli wrote that it was the sole duty of power to ‘secure the social welfare of the people’. From this has always sprung our One Nation tradition, which is being given new life today.

We are a party that seeks to give everyone the opportunity to succeed.

A Party that recognises it is local people who know what is best for their locality not some centralised Government bureaucracy.

A Party that trusts people.

Tony Blair’s New Labour claimed to understand this when they came to power in 1997. They said that they would bring hope and that they would offer people a brighter future. They promised the earth.

And they have failed to deliver. Failing public services as a result of over-regulation and constant interference, and failing trust as a result of continuous let down.

This is par for the course with left-wing Governments across the western world. They re-brand themselves but at the end of the day they are still the over-centralising, bossy, all-controlling governments that they have always been.

Why? Because in the end they don’t trust people – they don’t trust ordinary people to know what is best for their own localities, for their own communities. They always know best.

We start from the other end. Conservatism trusts the people. This goes to the heart of modern conservatism: trusting individuals, standing up for individual freedoms. Helping those in our society who are vulnerable. Working with the world as we find it, addressing practicalities to make that world better and address the problems faced by millions of our citizens and those worldwide.

We trust people to do their jobs. We trust them to know what’s best for their family. We trust them with their own money. We trust them to run their own lives.

When people are trusted, they build communities. We support those local communities. Conservatives believe in the individual, and we believe in those individuals coming together to form communities. Communities that can respond to local needs and help the vulnerable in those communities far better than any impersonal and distant Government could.

We trust teachers to teach. And in trusting the professionals we can better hope to deliver. Yet in the UK today we cannot find enough people who want to come into or stay in teaching, because the government does not trust them to do their jobs without constant interference. In the last year 4440 pages of regulations have gone to teachers, 17 pages for each working day of the year, all requiring some input from already hard-pressed teachers.

Education is the source of hope for people. It is the means by which they can better their lives and change their futures, yet our education system consistently fails the most disadvantaged. Truancy is a serious problem. Up by 11% since 1997. The gap between the best and the worst schools is growing. 500% increase in the number of assaults on teachers by parents and pupils, mostly in the worst schools. Is it surprising that 39% more teachers are leaving the profession before retirement than in 1997. And now for the first time for many years we are seeing teachers on strike or threatening to do so.

We have much to learn from countries like Germany on how to tackle these issues, and on how to improve our education system; and we are prepared to learn.

And why should the law-abiding majority in our society suffer increasingly at the hands of a minority of vicious and violent and often surprisingly young criminals?

The British Government has also taken away the local policeman’s discretion and freedom to tackle crime. Instead they have resorted to centralisation, less face to face human contact, more bureaucracy and less understanding of neighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood policing is the way forward; personal interaction and local knowledge. A system where the police officer knows the people he or she is looking after – and the criminals in the area – and where they know him. Under conservative mayor Rudi Giuliani such an approach produced tremendous results in New York. We believe it could do the same for us. n contrast in London last year street crime roes by 38%. You are now more likely to be mugged in London than in Harlem, New York!

But there is more to cracking crime than simply locking people up. We will as my colleague Oliver Letwin said offer people a way off the conveyor belt of crime. We will provide exit routes, not just by tackling crime and its causes but by exploring also the causes of good behaviour and law-abiding behaviour.

At the core of this is the emerging concept of the neighbourly society. A society which is based around a respect for people. To build up and preserve the local relationships and networks of identity and self-worth that make people feel included, that make them an important and valued part of the community.

In health care it is the same. Our local family doctors are part of the fabric of the local community. They know their neighbourhoods and the needs of those communities ands neighbourhoods far better than any central government department based miles away can ever hope to. We will trust doctors to know what is best for their patients.

The British Government concentrates too much on its own political health rather than the health of patients around the country, on spin doctors rather than real doctors. And in the midst of it all they have, in our view, lost sight of what really matters – making sick people better.

We have looked at health care provision in Europe. The best systems are those based on doctors and patients having choice. Having the flexibility and choice that enables them to react to their own needs and those of the locality. Once again we have looked at Germany. Your 5 year survival rate for leukaemia is 39% against ours of under 28%. For prostate cancer your survival rate is 68% against 44% in the UK. There is indeed a lot for us to learn.

These are the main political challenges facing us in the United Kingdom today, and these are the ways in which we as a party are seeking politically to address them.

We do so in a changed atmosphere. One which is based on a new sense of national self-confidence, of pride in our country and in our monarchy. This is politically our natural environment. Up to ten days ago this view was mocked by our own left-wing media. It was rubbished by one of your own well known publications. All now have red faces.

The British people gave their answer. Last week they came out in their millions in London and across the UK as a whole to demonstrate their affection for the Queen, their support for the monarchy and their total pride in their country and what it stands for.

At home, in the face of massive challenges the tide is finally turning slowly but steadily in our favour.

As at home, so too abroad we face massive challenges. 11 September has vividly and tragically brought home to us many of the challenges that began with the end of the Cold War. As I said earlier, flexibility is the key to meeting these challenges in what is an increasingly changing international scene.

After 11 September Tony Blair showed the value of flexibility. He was realistic about what was required to meet the threat, helping to build an international coalition which allowed nations to contribute at the level at which they felt happiest. The bureaucracy of a common position where all must conform to the lowest common denominator was avoided. Europe was able to react at different levels of enthusiasm and participation. The attempts of the most ardent European integrationist to seek a common foreign policy which would have meant sailing at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy were resisted. And rightly so. It would have been totally unrealistic to have done otherwise.

We as Conservatives believe in realism, not making promises you can’t keep, and in understanding our history – not denying it. These criteria will be the hallmark of a successful foreign policy in the coming decades. That is why we believe in the development of a Europe that works with America rather than in rivalry to it. America is in fact the greatest superpower the world has ever known; militarily, economically and educationally. It can and will work in partnership with Europe, but not with an antagonistic Europe. We must develop a Europe which is flexible and agile and which politically complements rather than politically competes.

We need to work to create an EU that is modern, de-centralised, that trusts its members and is not constantly trying to aggregate more of their powers to itself. An EU that is outward looking.

The Conservative Party is not interested in withdrawal from the EU – to do so would be a dangerous abdication of genuine influence. Nor should we follow the supranational approach beloved of so many in the EU, an approach that submerges everything in a vast supranational concept.

Our long-held belief that Europe must change to bring it closer to the people that actually live within it is now matched by a realisation in Europe itself that all is not well with “le projet”. Recent referendums and other electoral tests have demonstrated the growing alienation of the peoples of Europe from its institutions. If Europe is to carry true democratic legitimacy and accountability it must find a way of reconnecting with its peoples again. And Europe has realised this need for itself.

The Convention on the Future of Europe represents this realisation, a realisation first of all of the need for consultation. But that consultation must not be narrow either in scope or agenda. This convention must address all the fundamental problem facing the EU today and in particular the glaring democratic deficit. What we want, and what the Convention should concentrate on achieving, is a Europe of democracies – not a Europe of over-bearing bureaucrats.

The only certainty in Europe today is that Europe is uncertain, more uncertain about itself than it has been since its inception.

Against a backdrop of the threat of economic problems, a European demographic time-bomb, a technological gap between the EU and the US, a need for greater deregulation we can see the structural flaws of the European Union.

That is why we call for a fundamental review of the way the EU is currently working. Such a review is necessary before genuine constructive reform. The twin nettles of review and reform must be grasped if the EU is to meet successfully the challenges of the 21st century.

The EU stands at an historic crossroads. Recent political events in France stand as a warning of the potential outcome of that sense of detachment from a remote political elite felt by millions of people across Europe. In response to this sense of detachment various prescriptions have been offered.

Some people suggest the supra-national solution. Some the withdrawal solution. Both are wrong. I have already mentioned the drawbacks of withdrawal. As for the supra-national approach one has but to look at the CFSP for an example of the pitfalls of moving too fast and too far. It is a policy initiative wracked by lack of clarity, weasel words, muddle and impracticality. It is a policy which in practice would require every member state to sign up to the lowest common denominator. The aspiration of a more effective foreign policy is a noble one, but the CFSP route is a misguided one, as indeed is any attempt to coerce what is naturally incoercible.

An attempt to do so would make foreign policy far less effective. We saw the response to 11 September. Various countries had different views on the most appropriate response, and therefore a common line, a common policy, was impossible. I respect the right to disagree. Indeed I think it is vitally important that nations retain this basic right as national interests differ. But it serves to demonstrate the impracticality of a common policy.

In the press over recent weeks we have seen the chaos that characterises European security policy. Commissioners Patten and Kinnock have been open in their criticism of the role being played by Javier Solana. Giscard D’Estaing has called for a common European diplomatic service. Romano Prodi wants to push ahead with a single European foreign policy. Jack Straw wants to redefine sovereignty to fit this model. Yet at the same time he and the Prime Minister are calling for a Europe of Nations.

So who is right? Who do we believe? Who speaks for Britain and Europe on these important matters. So unclear is the message, so confused the language, so indistinct the objective, no wonder ordinary people feel cut off from their European masters. No wonder they are suspicious and distant.

By contrast we offer a clear approach – a view of Europe that is constructive, positive and forward looking. Europe needs to change to bring it back in touch with the peoples and parliaments of the nations of Europe. They are the original and abiding source of its legitimacy. Reform should aim to put them back at the heart of the European Union again.

We want to be constructive participants in that process of achieving reform, and our preferred way forward is clear.

A partnership of sovereign nations, bound by the single market and the rules of free trade, but otherwise working at different levels of participation and involvement, tailoring common ventures and aspirations to the national interest and the national modus operandi. A Europe for all seasons, and all national traits and imperatives, which recognises and maximises national strengths in a constructive way.

Defence co-operation on an flexible basis, working together as and when required, with each country contributing through NATO at the level with which it is most comfortable.

The deeds and words of the EU leadership at this time all point, not so much to a desire to make the EU work for the citizens of its member states, but to their desire to submerge – or as some might somewhat disingenuously suggest ‘pool’ – British sovereignty and that of other European countries in an ever more centralised Europe. Whatever the word, and even ‘pooling’ by definition means diluting, their agenda remains quite clearly the creation of a supranational Europe. What Romano Prodi rather infelicitously described as “an advanced supranational democracy which must be strengthened”, but which in the language of ordinary people in concept, in structure and in power is a superstate by any other name.

We believe profoundly that this is the wrong direction for Europe, and we reject it. It threatens not only the end of popular sovereignty, but also a further divorce of the political process from its legitimacy – through their national parliaments the people themselves. It either presages the unacceptable tyranny of the majority imposing common policies on a reluctant minority of member countries, or the equally unacceptable tyranny of the lowest common denominator.

The coercion of conformity and harmonisation would stifle the diversity that is the very essence of Europe, and in doing so could give birth to the tensions which would be meat and drink to nationalist movements across Europe.

These tensions will become even more apparent after enlargement. EU enlargement is a project that has always enjoyed the total support of the Conservative Party. But we must also recognise the need to plan properly for it.

The tensions that this creates are beginning to show in the failure to face up to the shortcomings of the Common Agricultural Policy, and in the increasingly sharp exchanges between the accession countries and Brussels as the realisation dawns that the EU has taken insufficient account of their needs with regard to structural funds and agricultural subsidies. This is a salutary warning of the internal divisions we risk if we do not move swiftly to reform.

We want to see genuine and constructive reform. We do not see it in Romano Prodi’s ‘advanced supranational democracy’. A supranational European state would undermine the goodwill and genuine co-operation required in Europe. It would also be harking back. It would be building a bloc when the era of blocs is ended.

It would also be naively ambitious. To attempt to be a superpower bloc, rivalling America, is foolish. America is a sovereign superpower with vast resources. Europe is not. We need America far more than America needs us. We must stick to the partnership of Europe and America. We must reject the anti-American rhetoric of some leading Europeans who want to make it Europe or America. There are too many politicians in Europe today, and not only in the Commission, who seems to think there is something macho in being critical of America, in portraying its foreign policy as ‘simplistic’ against the perceived ‘sophistication’ of Europe’s. While quiet and well-based criticism can be an act of true friendship, this smug unpleasant anti-American undertone emanating from the upper echelons of Europe can only damage the interests of Europe. Nor would the description of European foreign policy as ‘sophisticated’ be readily recognised in the Middle East or in the Indian sub-continent at this point in time. Europe would be better engaged in examining critically itself rather than in being so ready to insult its friends.

That is why the current debate on the future structure and shape of Europe is so vital.

We need to use the current debate to look at what is working and what is not. That which is working and is consistent with the Europe of the future should be preserved and strengthened. That which is not working, or is out of date or is no longer consistent with the evolving nature of Europe should be reformed or discarded. Anything less than this rigorous approach will be a sham.

The Treaties, the ‘acquis’, the directives, should all be open to re-examination to assess their effectiveness and continuing relevance – and open to change if necessary. A genuine review and reform process cannot object to revisiting those elements which appear either not to be working or not working as well as they should. There can be no sacred cows, no no-go areas, no sealed vaults

By adapting to change and revisiting the treaties, the regulations and if necessary the ‘acquis’ and in making a constructive assessment of their continuing relevance and value to people as opposed to institutions, we can hope to move once again towards a ‘bottom-up’ Europe. A Europe that starts with the needs and aspirations of the people of Europe, not the ambitions of its bureaucrats, and which can once again make itself relevant to people’s lives.

We are open to genuine reform. Not doctrinal reform to a set agenda, but reform to build a more workable Europe to meet enlargement. Not destructive reform, but constructive reform which works for the peoples of Europe. Not theoretical reform, but reform which reconnects people with what Europe means for them, and which will make a useful contribution to improving their lives.

I have tried to give you a view about what is happening in my Party, in my country and our perception of current developments within the European Union. In a strangely inevitable way I have been led back in each case to the same fundamental democratic truth – the central importance of the people. But that is in the nature of democracy. It is what it means.

It is a regrettably an endemic weakness of politicians to believe that they always know better than the people. Some of our political leaders tell me that it is not a politician’s job to listen but to lead. In fact it is possible to do both, but each action must be commensurate with the other. The 20th Century was essentially an era in which politicians worked to grand designs and built grand structures, where they sought to impose vaulting philosophies and ideologies, and expected people simply to follow, coercing them when they did not.

However harsh the ideology, however draconian the philosophy, it was invariably pursued in the name of the people, often seeking spurious and unjustified legitimacy from that claim. Towards the end of the 20th Century we saw the worst of these totalitarian dictatorships overthrown by the very force from which they had sought to claim their legitimacy. It was the people who laid low the Berlin Wall. It was the people who brought to its knees and ultimately broke up the mighty Soviet Union. It was the people who liberated themselves and in doing so Eastern Europe. It was the people who reopened the gates of freedom and individual liberty.

And it was in the name of the peoples of Europe and the determination to protect them from the ravages of any future European war that what is now the European union was begun. This was a dream which was civilised, democratic and well meaning, and many of my generation welcomed it with open arms. But it too has succumbed to the aggrandising ambitions of political journeymen. In so doing it has begun seriously to lose touch with the peoples who are through their parliaments the font of its legitimacy. These same people are making clear their frustration, and not always in the most comfortable democratic of ways.

On a smaller scale the popular reaction to an increasingly remote and out of touch government in my country is the same. The residual corporate state, the surviving elements of the leviathan largely dismantled by the Thatcher years, still creates resentment through its continuing arrogant tendency to believe that come what may it knows best. Once again it is the people who are demonstrating the growing disenchantment and sense of alienation – in our case by not voting..

And it is my Party too where the leadership had tended to become remote from its grass-roots, and where through radical democratic reform the link between the leadership and party members has now been revived.

The message in each area is same. Heed the people. Trust the people. Work with and for the people.

Democracy is a tender plant. Across Europe it is constantly under threat. Our goal is its entrenchment in the face of massive change. The Centre Right has never been better placed to help bring about that entrenchment. That is our common cause. I believe that together in a flexible Europe we can and will succeed.

The speech made by Michael Ancram in the House of Commons on 11 June 2003.

I beg to move, – ‘That this House believes that any Treaty providing a constitution for the European Union should only be ratified by Parliament once it has received the consent of the British people, democratically given in a referendum.’

This is a straightforward and democratic motion that I hope will win widespread support across the House. It is also a timely motion, as it is being debated on the eve of the national referendum on a referendum that is being conducted by the Daily Mail. I congratulate the Daily Mail on its initiative, and it is not alone. A referendum is also backed by The Sun, The Daily Telegraph, the Yorkshire Post, The Birmingham Post, The Scotsman and many other newspapers, but, most importantly—as shown in opinion poll after opinion poll—it is massively backed by the British people.

The terms of the motion are simple and straightforward. They are as politically neutral as possible, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his position when we reach the end of the debate.

I hope that as many people as possible will register their opinion tomorrow, if only to show the Government that the British electorate will not readily be sidelined on major issues that involve the transfer of powers from this country.

At a time when referendums have become an instrument of our political system, and when popular involvement in decisions has become part of our national culture, it would be wrong for an important decision affecting the future of our country to be taken without reference to the people. We should provide them with the opportunity to choose, “And then the people will decide”.

Those are not my words, but those of the Secretary of State for Wales on the “Today” programme on 27 May when he thought, perhaps unguidedly—until he was required later to unthink—that next year’s elections could be used as some sort of surrogate referendum.

The words of the Secretary of State for Wales are important, because they reflect the purpose of this motion, which is to enfranchise the people, not through the European elections but through a referendum. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who—I am sad to see—is not in his place today, will have the intellectual integrity to support us in the Lobby later.

What of the Liberal Democrats? I was pleased to hear the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife say that “If Convention proposals have constitutional implications, there should be a referendum.” That sentiment is broadly reflected in the amendment that they have tabled today. Our motion refers to a “Treaty providing a constitution for the European Union”.

It is impossible to see how a constitutional treaty providing a constitution can, by definition, be said not to have constitutional implications. I cannot see how even the Liberal Democrats can, with integrity, avoid supporting our motion today.

We will be told that when we were in office we did not propose referendums on European matters of constitutional significance—that attack has been made on previous occasions—but was not it John Major who promised a referendum on the single currency? After six years of commitment from this Government, we are still waiting for that referendum.

We are told that we will still get a referendum on the euro, but we will have to wait and see. All that we are getting at the moment is the Tony and Gordon roadshow—the Government’s answer to our ill-fated Eurovision entry Jemini, being ill matched and out of tune. After six years of being told that the single currency was simply an economic decision, with no constitutional significance, suddenly we are told that it has achieved constitutional significance again.

The Prime Minister said in Warsaw on 30 May that “if we recommend entry to the euro, it would be a step of such economic and constitutional significance that a referendum would be sensible, and right, which is why we have promised one.”

The Prime Minister used the phrase “constitutional significance”, but what about the Convention? At Question Time today, the Prime Minister said again that he did not believe that the Convention was constitutionally significant, but I ask the question again: if a constitutional treaty providing a constitution for the EU is not of constitutional significance, what on earth is? Surely it would be as sensible and right to have a referendum on the constitution as on the euro?

I am sure that we will also hear the usual attacks for not backing referendums in the past. The answer is straightforward. Ten or 12 years ago, we did not have referendums. Even Labour Members argued in many debates—and I can give the House examples, if necessary—against referendums. However, nowadays we do have referendums, and that is because this Government have made them readily available as a political and constitutional device for allowing people to decide. There has even been legislation on the systems of referendums.

The Government have used referendums with gusto. There have been 34 referendums since 1997, on matters ranging from the Belfast agreement and devolution for Scotland and Wales to the London Mayor and Assembly and the much-canvassed mayor of Hartlepool; many more are promised on regional assemblies. This Government love referendums, as they have shown over and over again—but not on this matter, the most important and far-reaching issue of the lot. It is their instant ruling-out of one on the European constitution that stands out.

Why this matter? What are the Government afraid of? If the people’s consent to set up a mayor of Hartlepool is so important, why is it to be denied for the setting-up of a European president of a European political Union? The answer, we were told by the Prime Minister again in Warsaw, is that neither the Convention nor the IGC represents “a fundamental change to the British Constitution and to our system of parliamentary democracy”.

How does the Prime Minister know what an IGC that has not yet begun is going to represent? On that basis, how can he rule out a referendum now?

Today’s amendment changes the criteria. Out goes the phrase “a fundamental change to the British Constitution”, and in comes the phrase “do not involve a fundamental change in the relationship between the EU and its Member States”.

Those are two very different sets of criteria. In a sense, it is perhaps all about words, but what matters is the reality. It is the reality that matters, not the words. We are at the moment part of an albeit imperfect Europe of nations. I believe that the European Union is in need of reform, but if the Convention proposals as they stand were ratified in a treaty we would be part of something fundamentally different.

I do not mind whether we call it a superstate, a federal power or—the Prime Minister’s preferred option—a superpower. I do not care whether we call it a politically united Europe or even Romano Prodi’s “advanced supranational democracy”. All I know is that it will not be what we have now. It will be a step change away from that. I do not understand how can the Government can claim that that does not involve a fundamental change of the relationship between the EU and its member states, because it changes that relationship: member states would go from being partners to being subservient components.

If we look at the overall result of the Convention’s proposals, we begin to see what is happening. The proposals will lead to a legal personality, a constitution, a president and a foreign secretary. It will involve fundamental rights, including the right to strike, legally enforceable at a European level. There will be a common foreign and security policy, and a European prosecutor. European law will have explicit primacy, and it will have an increasing role in criminal law, especially in procedure. There will be shared competence over immigration and asylum, with no veto, and Europe’s powers will be expanded into vast areas, from transport to energy. There could even be—who knows?—a common currency.

Each of those elements diminishes our existing national sovereignty in one way or another. Together, they build a new and distinct political entity that has many of the attributes of a country. That is the truth, however hard the Government seek to disguise it. To call this a tidying-up exercise is laughable, and simply not true.

One of the Convention’s leading members, the former Italian Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, said in The Sunday Telegraph of 1 June: “The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people’s lives . . . and eventually will become an institution and organisation in its own right.”

That may not suit the Government’s agenda, but Lamberto Dini is on the Convention, and that is what he believes will happen. That is the reality.

If we look at the totality of what is being done. I used to practise in the courts, and one could take little bits of evidence and say that none of them amounted to much on its own. What matters is the eventual result of putting them all together. I am suggesting to the House that what is being created, whether one wants it or not, is very different from what we have now. If that is the case, it is of constitutional significance, and it should be the subject of a referendum.

I believe that those components will change the nature of the EU. An EU foreign secretary and a common foreign and security policy would mean that the circumstances of the EU would be very different from what they are at the moment. We must consider that point as we determine whether a referendum is necessary or not.

The Government know that the proposals are far reaching. The Treasury’s own single currency assessments published on Monday state: “Many of the issues being considered by the European Convention could have far reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies whether they are part of the euro area or not.”

That means us, and it does not sound to me like tidying up. It sounds much more like the Prime Minister’s criteria of economic significance as well as constitutional significance, about which he spoke in Warsaw, where he said that they make a referendum sensible and right. His words also apply to what we see coming from the Convention.

My party opposes the constitution, but that is not the point of the motion. The point is to give the British people the right to decide whom they believe and what choice they want to make about how this country goes forward in Europe. That is why we are pressing for a referendum. Parliament is sovereign, but, in my view, that sovereignty is granted to it in trust by the people. Parliament should not be able to alienate sovereignty permanently and irreversibly without the express consent, democratically given, of the electorate. In the absence of a general election, such authority can be given to Parliament only by a referendum.

Authority has not been given, nor have the Government sought it. There was no mention of a European constitution in their manifesto. That is another reason why a referendum is necessary. That is not just the view of the Conservative party or our country: the hon. Member for Moray reminded us of the origins of the Convention, and I shall quote what Valéry Giscard d’Estaing said on 28 February 2002 when he launched it: “Treaties are made by states and agreed by Parliaments, but constitutions are created by citizens and adopted by them in referendums.”

That was his view then; I believe it remains his view today. The Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Rasmussen, was reported as saying on 28 May: “What is at stake is so new and so big that it is right to hold a referendum”.

From all corners of the debate in Europe, people are telling us that the constitution is a significant move forward and that it is a subject fitting for a referendum. The case for a referendum is compelling.

The motion refers carefully and deliberately to “a treaty providing a constitution for the European Union”.

That makes it even more difficult for me to understand how, without their knowing the eventual shape and contents of the treaty, the Government are able instantly to rule out a referendum. If they do not know what they will be looking at in the long term, how can they say that there will be no referendum? Why are the Government so frightened? Are they frightened that their smokescreen will be blown away, and is that why they dare not let the British people decide? Other countries will let their peoples decide. Denmark and Ireland will let the people decide. France, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and Austria may, in various ways, let their people decide. The Netherlands has just decided on a non-binding referendum. Only Britain, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece refuse point blank to let the people decide.

The Government’s position insults the British people. They continue to play what I call the “big lie” card, saying that the debate on Europe is about going right in or coming out of Europe, and that they want in and we want out. That is dishonest spin of the worst sort—the kind of spin that has already brought them into disrepute, a lesson from which I hope they learn. The real Europe debate, which the Government are so keen to avoid, is the debate about the sort of Europe that we want to be in. Is it a Europe of sovereign nations that we seek, or is it a European superpower that the Prime Minister proclaimed in Poland in October 2000 and in Cardiff in November 2002? That is the real choice.

This motion is about trusting the people. It is a democratic motion. It exposes the arrogance of a Government who will not let the people have their say. What is the betting that the Leader of the House will shortly tell a newspaper that there are rogue elements in the electorate, let alone in the House, who are seeking to undermine the Government, and that that is why we cannot have a referendum? Only six years ago, the Government asked us to trust them. What we are saying is: “Trust the people.” Why do they continue to say no?

We will trust the people. We will not take no for an answer. We will let the people decide. I call on the House to support the motion.