UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Timothy Kirkhope

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Contribution to the Future of Europe Debate

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Contribution to the Future of Europe Debate

    The contribution made by Timothy Kirkhope MEP on 7 September 2001.

    Good public policy requires a vigorous preliminary debate. One of the problems with the European Union is the limited scope for proper debate. The moment any politician, party or grouping question anything, they are pigeon-holed as Eurosceptics or Europhiles rather than listened to as contributors to the on-going European debate. As a lawyer by profession, I am naturally “sceptical”, but would not accept the description “Eurosceptic” with all that entails. When I engage in debate, I think it is right to be at least quizzical about the merits of any proposal for my constituents. Scepticism is an important part of any debate and the problem with the EU is that there simply isn’t enough debate.

    We have ‘debates’ in the European Parliament, but the scope of that debate is limited. With respect to my colleagues, no one will ever deliver brilliant oration on the need for enlargement or the case against the single currency when we are limited to one, or if we are very lucky, two minutes. Is the level of debate or the scrutiny of legislation any better in the Committees? ‘Scrutinising’: what does that mean? It often doesn’t mean, frankly, very much at all. In any case, which newspaper regularly covers the work of the Committees, as opposed to the alleged level of expenses? If this is the level of debate, how can we expect a proper debate about the future of Europe?

    Rushed legislation is often poor legislation because it hasn’t been properly thought through. For example, when I was a Home Office Minister in the last Conservative Government in the United Kingdom, we introduced new controls on firearms following the Dunblane massacre. Looking back, this was “knee-jerk legislation”. With more debate (and with the benefit of hindsight) we would have approached things differently.

    I believe that the EU is suffering from a similar problem. It is rushing through a vision without properly considering the practicalities. This can be seen in two areas of European public policy: the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Rapid Reaction Force.

    As a member of the Charter of Fundamental Rights Convention, I welcomed the emphasis placed on the protection of human rights, but I worry about its compatibility with the European Convention of Human Rights. We are in a situation where we have two sets of human rights law: we have the Convention set up by the Council of Europe and the Charter established by the European Union. Both the Charter and the Convention deal with the same area of law but with different wording. Why does the competence of the EU need to include an area that is dealt with satisfactorily by the Council of Europe? Two sets of human rights law will undoubtedly harm rather than help the very people it was designed to protect.

    Similarly, would a separate European Rapid Reaction Force help or harm the security of the peoples of Europe? The resolution of the Balkans conflict was brought about through NATO not the EU. “Exactly,” argue supporters of the new defence initiative, “that’s why we need an independent European defence force.” I argue the reverse. Only if we maintain our links with NATO, and through NATO our links with countries outside the EU, will we guarantee maximum security for the peoples of Britain and Europe. Why does the competence of the EU need to include an area which NATO already excels in?

    It is true that some countries are more enthusiastic about European integration than the British, but this does not mean that Britain’s horizons end at the Channel. Britain is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of NATO and one of the G8, and the Queen is Head of the Commonwealth. Britain and the British Conservative Party is internationalist in outlook. But we are worried that the creation of a European Federal State would reduce British horizons rather than expand them. Does accepting the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights mean rejecting the non-EU members of the Council of Europe? Is support for a European Rapid Reaction Force a rebuff to our NATO allies? People assume that support for ‘ever closer union’ entails internationalism. I believe that Britain’s internationalism should be pursued through the European Union as well as through other international groups.

    The Conservative Party’s opposition to a European Federal State is also grounded in its natural scepticism towards the institutions of the European Union. We passionately believe in democracy and accountability and for that reason we support the development of the Ombudsmen to act as a ‘check’ on the institutions on behalf of the peoples of Europe. We also recognise that the applicant countries have made massive sacrifices to adopt the acquis communautaire and we want to ensure that the enlargement process is not used as an excuse by the institutions to increase their power. For this reason, we welcome Neil Kinnock’s report but we do not think it goes far enough. A much more radical approach is needed to check the institutions and ensure the long-term prosperity of the European Union.

    Politicians are supposed to be answerable to the people: I am, I always have been and I will continue to be as long as I serve my constituents. This duty includes a proper debate to prevent a simplistic approach to the future of Europe with its accompanying harmful effects. The Conservative Party will continue to argue the case for a free enterprise, free trading Europe, with more checks on the institutions and more accountability to the people; and we will also voice our united opposition to a European Federal State as part of the debate that Europe so desperately needs.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Speech on Europe After 9/11

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Speech on Europe After 9/11

    The speech made by Timothy Kirkhope MEP on 30 November 2001.

    It is now a truism to say that the atrocities of 11 September were a momentous event. Whether the current “fight against terrorism” ranks alongside the Gulf War or the Second World War is an academic question: what matters is that the first war of the new century is the issue of the moment.

    Like the Second World War, the fight against terrorism is having as much impact on the “home front” as it does on the “international front”. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Home Secretary is playing as important a role in the conflict as the Foreign Secretary. When terrorists are the enemy, rather than states and when anthrax attacks on citizens are as much of a possibility as sniper attacks on soldiers, home affairs becomes as important as foreign affairs.

    Therefore, the central question for Justice and Home Affairs ministers and spokesmen during this crisis is: ‘Should the principles that govern our actions be irrevocably and permanently changed by this crisis, or should they just be adapted for the duration of the present conflict? Let me give a few examples:

    The UK Government has recently brought in retrospective legislation to deter anthrax hoaxers with penalties of up to seven years in prison. This is the first time in modern history that legislation has taken effect before being approved by the House of Commons. This law will be applied retrospectively to those who commit anthrax hoaxes between Sunday 21 October and the date Parliament approves the legislation. Naturally, I am pleased that David Blunkett has acted against anthrax hoaxers, but the precedent this legislation sets worries me. Essentially, the aim of the legislation is laudable, but the procedure used to implement must be questionable.

    Secondly, the European Parliament is united in a wish to prevent terrorist groups from funding their activities from the proceeds of criminal activities such as drug smuggling. But there are worries that the principle of client confidentiality between lawyers and clients could be severely undermined by the money laundering directive proposed by the European Council. The original wording of the directive would have compelled lawyers to alert the authorities if they had “reason to believe” that their client was seeking advice for money laundering purposes. Whilst our Parliament fully agreed that client confidentiality is secondary if a lawyer “knows” about money laundering activities, the catchall “or has reason to believe” would have been is a serious blow to an important legal principle apart from its unclear meaning.

    Then there is freedom of speech for elected representatives. The Chief Whip for the Labour Party in the UK responded to a Labour Member of Parliament calling for greater United Nations involvement in the fight against terrorism: “It was people like you who appeased Hitler in 1938!” As Chief Whip of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, I feel that in this case the Labour Party is mistaking constructive criticism for outright opposition. The Labour movement is known to have a long history of pacifism that should not be confused with support for Osama bin Laden.

    These examples illustrate how the fight against terrorism has changed the way in which we conduct Home Affairs. There are other questions including whether traditional freedom of movement should be limited in the European Union; whether freedom of association should also be restricted; and whether the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be curtailed in the aftermath of 11 September. We need to think carefully before we act decisively and permanently.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2002 Speech at the European Convention

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2002 Speech at the European Convention

    The speech made by Timothy Kirkhope on 21 March 2002.

    This is the second convention on which I have sat, having been on the Charter of Fundamental Rights Convention. Although I was not totally happy with the results of that Convention, it did establish a new model of negotiation which excites me and many other people too. The Guardian newspaper in Britain this morning rightly said that this Convention will be seen to have more democratic legitimacy than the secretive wrangling of national leaders as witnessed most recently at the Barcelona summit.

    We must remember that Europe is not on trial here. Europe is part of the equation, part of the democratisation of Europe. After all, the peoples of Europe want to see all the institutions, not only the European ones but also the national Parliaments themselves, look carefully at their own activities. Maybe they want to reclaim some powers from Europe. At the same time, there is a general lack of confidence in politicians that we will have to address in the work we do here.

    I want to just support you, Mr. President, in what you have said about young people. I believe that the future of Europe is not just ours. I hope I’ve got a little of a future left in Europe, but young people have a much bigger future and a bigger stake in the future of Europe. It is therefore essential for us, as part of the listening process that we are now embarking on, to make sure that young people are a significant part of the consultation process and that their aspirations for the future are listened to. I shall certainly consult very carefully with young people, Mr President. You identified it yourself and I think you hit the nail on the head, as they say, in doing so.

    My only other remark is this. When consulting civil society, it is terribly important for us to draw the boundaries of civil society as widely as possible. There are some who call themselves representatives of civil society but who actually represent narrow vested interests. In order to avoid this problem, we must consult widely as part of the listening process.

    Whatever we get at the end of this process, I hope it is a great success, and I hope we regain public confidence in our institutions.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2003 Speech on the European Convention

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2003 Speech on the European Convention

    The speech made by Timothy Kirkhope in Copenhagen on 25 June 2003.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the past eighteen months have been perhaps the most busy and interesting months of my political career.

    The Convention has succeeded. Not necessarily in the nature of its final text but certainly as an exercise in ‘opening up’ the debate in Europe by bringing together so many interests and views. I do not agree with the final outcome of the Convention – a European Constitution (I believe we should have had a new Treaty, like the old Treaties) – but I remain a keen support of the Convention model for European negotiations.

    Having had the privilege of representing the Conservative Party on both the Charter of Fundamental Rights Convention and the ‘Future of Europe’ Convention, I believe that the model provides a blueprint for bringing together representatives from different political opinions and countries to discuss issues in an open and accountable manner.

    I would like to begin by refreshing your memories about the events of the past eighteen months. Specifically, how we reached where we are now.

    The European Convention was, as you will recall, established at the Laeken European Council in December 2001 to bring together representatives from both the existing Member States and the new Accession States to work out how a European Union of 28 countries should operate in future – a necessary initiative.

    The Convention began its work last February under the chairmanship of former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing.

    The first phase involved listening to the people of Europe. This was done both formally, through representations from Civil Society and the Youth Convention, and informally, through individual consultation exercises with our constituents and colleagues. Unfortunately, this was not as successful as it could have been.

    The second phase of the Convention involved studying specific issues in separate working groups. Each working group had around 30 members, broadly balanced according to political group and nationality.

    The first working group members served on studied institutional reform. The issues studied were the Charter of Fundamental Rights, complementary competencies, legal personality; national parliaments, simplification and finally subsidiarity.

    Convention members then studied specific policy areas: defence, economic governance, external action, Freedom Security and Justice, and finally, social Europe.

    The third phase of the Convention, which we are still technically in, has involved drafting the final document.

    At the beginning of February, the Praesidium unveiled a draft text of the first 16 Articles for Convention members to amend and discuss; and, week by week, new sections and drafts have been amended and discussed.

    The final document includes a:
    -Preamble, outlining the objectives of the Union.
    -Part One is essentially an overview of Part Three, which contains the detail of the Constitution.
    -Part Two incorporates the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
    -Part Three, entitled ‘The policies and functioning of the Union’ contains the detail of the Constitution.
    -Part Four covers the ‘General and final provisions.’

    And there follows protocols on:
    -the role of national parliaments,
    -the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and
    -representation in the European Parliament and voting in the Council.

    Submitting amendments to the drafts of the text over the past four months has been the toughest part of the Convention process.

    I have based my suggestions on Conservative principles and the opinions of Conservative people.

    My central principle is that the Conservative Party and Britain should remain engaged but vigilant in the European Union. And, of course, it is well known that the views of the British are somewhat anarchical to Europe!

    As well as consulting my constituents, I have consulted include Conservative MEPs and MPs, the Voluntary Party, young people in Conservative Future, and activists through a nationwide questionnaire.

    I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the support I have received over the past eighteen months and thank everybody for their contributions. I wouldn’t have been able to represent the Conservative Party as effectively as I hope I have done without the help of many other people.

    The Conservatives’ ‘Bottom Line’ for the Convention, which was published in the Spring 2003 edition of our magazine Delivering for Britain, is based on long-standing, traditional Conservative principles and philosophy. It is not ‘anti-Europe’ but it is a statement of our wishes for a sustainable Europe.

    Our first bottom line is to say:

    1. ‘No’ to a European Constitution for a Federal Superstate

    The United Kingdom has never had a codified constitution – that is to say, a ‘higher law’ bringing together the basic principles of government in one document. The British constitution is, in political science terms, uncodified. That is to say, it is drawn from many documents of ordinary statutory law and convention. Whereas I could walk into a bookshop in America and ask for a copy of the constitution, if I did so in the Britain, they would think I was mad. Therefore, because we have never had a codified constitution, accepting a codified European Constitution goes against the grain of our political traditions.

    Our second bottom line is to say:

    2. ‘No’ to a single legal personality for the European Union

    To some extent the EU already has legal personality, but this ‘departure’ takes it too far. Giving the European Union legal personality would sit uncomfortably with our political traditions. The British system of government is based on parliamentary sovereignty – Parliament, not the Prime Minister or the monarchy, is the source of political power in the UK. Tony Blair may have centralised power and ridden roughshod over Parliament, but the Conservative Party continues to believe in Parliamentary democracy. To establish an alternative powerbase would therefore run contrary to the political traditions that have served us well for so long. And can we envisage the UK or France willingly giving up a seat on the UN Security Council?

    Our third bottom line is:

    3. ‘No’ to a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights

    As a member of the Charter of Fundamental Rights Convention, I welcomed the emphasis placed on the protection of human rights, but I worry about its compatibility with the European Convention of Human Rights. We are in a situation where we have two sets of human rights law: we have the Convention set up by the Council of Europe and the Charter established by the European Union. Both the Charter and the Convention deal with the same area of law but with different wording. Why does the competence of the EU need to include an area that is dealt with satisfactorily by the Council of Europe? Two sets of human rights law will undoubtedly harm rather than help the very people it was designed to protect. It would also divide the membership of the Council of Europe. Incorporating the Charter would, I believe, create more problems than it cures.

    Our forth and fifth bottom lines cover the cutting-edge issues of integration – foreign and home affairs

    4. ‘No’ to a Common Foreign and Security Policy or a European Army

    European Democrats support cooperation on foreign and home affairs, but only in the context of the pillar structure, which guarantees intergovernmental decision-making. The European Union encompasses many countries with long and distinctive histories. Some Member States have a unique historical involvement in certain parts of the world, reinforced by ties of language, trade or blood. All Member States have specific memories and experiences which shape their ambitions today. Some states want neutrality, others participate in NATO, and France and the UK have a global military reach and the tradition of action. Enlargement will only increase these distinctions. For these reasons, whilst the European Democrats hope that we will continue to cooperate closely under NATO, we do not feel that it is appropriate to develop a Common Foreign Policy under the first pillar decision-making mechanism.

    Turning to Home Affairs, we also say:

    5. ‘No’ to a Common Home Affairs Policy or a Common Asylum Policy – perhaps the biggest issue of them all.

    As politicians, we are elected to represent the views of our constituents and opinion polls suggest that the public does not want more centralisation in justice and home affairs. The Eurobarometer carried out in April 2002 specifically for the Convention showed us that only a minority of those surveyed were in favour of European-level decisions being taken on justice (58% against) and police matters (63% against). Having said that, the same survey showed us that the fight against organised crime and drugs trafficking ranks third (after peace and security and the reduction of unemployment) in public priority and has the support of almost 9 out of 10 Europeans. To me, the message from Eurobarometer is clear: ‘yes’ to cooperation between member states’ judiciaries, police forces and Home Offices; but ‘no’ to greater harmonisation in this field. If we go ahead with a European Public Prosecutor, a European Border Guard, the abolition of the third pillar and greater qualified majority voting, I feel that we will be going against pubic opinion and fuelling the dissatisfaction that many people feel about politics and politicians in general.

    Having heard five things European Democrats are against, you may well be wondering what, if anything, are we in favour of for the future of Europe. What we do say is:

    6. ‘Yes’ to a new Treaty simplifying the existing Treaties

    At the beginning of the Convention, there were signs that we would conclude by proposing a new Treaty, simplifying the existing Treaties and making the European policy making process more understandable to the peoples of Europe.

    The German state, for instance, is based on a ‘Grundgesetz’ as opposed to a ‘Verfassung’ – a set of basic laws rather than a constitution. The European Union needs a new treaty nearer to a Grundgesetz than to a Verfassung because European citizens want a Europe of nation states rather than a United States of Europe. A Simplifying Treaty would both outline the boundaries of competence between European and national institutions and parliaments and also shift the balance from the undemocratic to the democratic components of the European Union. Sadly, this is not the basis of the draft European Constitution, but we are in favour of a new Treaty along these lines.

    We also say:

    7. ‘Yes’ to cooperation in foreign and home affairs on a bilateral basis

    I passionately believe that Member States should be able to cooperate together in areas falling outside the competence of the European Union, such as foreign and home affairs. My question to those who oppose this proposition is: How can we legitimately talk about national sovereignty if we attempt to prevent other countries from exercising their national sovereignty? Therefore I believe there is a need for a mechanism to allow Member States to cooperate together outside the Union.

    The mechanism I would suggest is through bilateral and multilateral treaties. Independent cooperation is, I believe, the way forward because enhanced cooperation as a process has been abused in the past as a trail-blazing mechanism with a bent to further integration beyond the Treaties. Participation in core issues such as the single market, the environment and some transport matters, for example, should be compulsory. But issues such as foreign and home affairs should be dealt with on a bilateral basis to avoid the ratchet effect of enhanced cooperation.

    The eighth bottom line is about promoting democracy and accountability:

    8. ‘Yes’ to more democracy and accountability in the EU

    The European Democrats believe that power should be moved from the unelected institutions of the European Union to the elected institutions. One change I have suggested is that the right of initiative should be shared between the unelected Commission to the elected European Parliament. Another change would involve improving the transposition process of European legislation into national law. So, Mr President, why does gold plating affect the UK more than any other member state? One important reason is because the UK, unlike many other member states, simply does not involve its MEPs in the transposition process.

    In Belgium, the Chamber of Representatives has an Advisory Committee on European Affairs which is made up of 10 MPs and 10 MEPs who enjoy equal status on the Committee. Belgian MEPs are also allowed to speak in Standing Committee meetings and to table written questions to the Government. The German Bundestag also has a Committee where MEPs are entitled to propose subjects for discussion and to give opinions on the proposals discussed. And the Greek Parliament has a similar arrangement.

    As an MEP who has been a UK MP, I now realise how little I and my colleagues knew about the regulations coming from Europe. Because we concentrated on national policy matters, we were often unable to spend very much time with the European legislation under consideration. As a result, Government Departments were able to ‘gold plate’ the legislation without MPs knowledge or involvement. This problem has got much worse under the present British Socialist Government as they reduce the powers of our House of Commons and the time available for any scrutiny.

    By establishing joint committees of MPs and MEPs to oversee the transposition of European laws there would be less gold plating and the government would be held to account.

    Our penultimate bottom line is to say:

    9. ‘Yes’ to international free trade and ‘yes’ to greater decentralisation

    Adam Smith, the great eighteenth century philosopher and economist, proved that economic freedom goes hand-in-hand with public prosperity. The lesson we should draw from The Wealth of Nations is that a low tax, lightly regulated economy helps both rich and poor alike by inducing entrepreneurship, creating jobs and generating wealth. I am a great believer in Adam Smith and free trade and I have attempted to inject some of this spirit I my amendments, by restating free trade as a major objective of the Union and an integral element of overseas aid. I hope this is a point with which unites us all here today.

    Our final bottom line is:

    10. ‘Yes’ to a referendum so the people of Europe can have the final say

    This principle is integral to our party policy and I’ll be referring back to it in my concluding remarks

    These 10 bottom lines have been the main inspiration for my amendments; and they encapsulate the beliefs of the European Democrats and our approach to the future of Europe debate.

    For those of you who are interested, my amendments – which reflect the bottom line – have been collated into a ‘Simplifying Treaty’ which is available on the internet at www.conservatives.com or www.kirkhope.org.uk.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I am the first to recognize that there are significant differences between the text which I have produced and that produced for the EPP by Elmar Brok. But I have done what I believe is right. As a Conservative, I have participated and argued for my beliefs for the future of Europe.

    There is one area where I hope we will be able to find consensus this week, and that is the issue of a referendum on the European Constitution.

    Last October, the Conservative delegation supported me in announcing our commitment to the principle of giving people a say on the next stage of the integration process.

    This is a cause which I know many of you here today have committed yourself to as well. It is a cause that unites many of us in our approach to Convention.

    So, I would like to leave you with one thought. The European People’s Party and the European Democrats must agree on one thing, it is this. We must be united on the need for a referendum.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2006 Speech on the Finnish Presidency

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2006 Speech on the Finnish Presidency

    The speech made by Timothy Kirkhope, the Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, on 5 July 2006.

    President, President-in-Office,

    The new Presidency wants to develop a transparent and effective Union. The issues of transparency and openness are ones British Conservatives have been championing for many years. The opening of Council meetings is a step in the right direction and has been taken despite the crass attempts by the new British Foreign Secretary to preserve secrecy. We will watch carefully to see that the letter and spirit of openness is upheld in the coming months. Equally, the Presidency’s wish to scrutinise the effects of legislation and improving its clarity is something I welcome. But British Conservatives have long argued for proper assessments on whether some legislation is actually required at all. The initial presumption must always be, in my view, against legislating. There shall also be proper impact assessments undertaken before embarking on new laws. I hope that the Presidency will make progress in creating a new culture in the EU which lays emphasis on less legislation and less regulation. This is an essential part of the reform agenda that I want Europe to develop.

    The Presidency also wants to see more effective decision-making in judicial co-operation in criminal matters. I hope the emphasis here will be on better inter-governmental co-operation and not harmonisation. The announcement by Commissioner Frattini last week that he will urge Member States to make use of the passerelle clauses to move to qualified majority voting in the third pillar is unwelcome news. People do want governments to work together more effectively to prevent terrorism, combat human trafficking and fight the scourge of drugs. I do too. But this does not require the ending of the veto in these areas. Harmonisation is a flawed approach. It denies the police and security services the flexibility and adaptability they need to stay one step ahead of the terrorists and the drug traffickers. Giving Parliament and the Court of Justice ‘second guess’ powers will hamper and undermine the work of law enforcement agencies across Europe.

    I am strongly against any proposal that would see national parliaments ceding power over drugs policy, the Serious Fraud Office in the UK ceding power over anti-corruption investigations to Europol and the police ceding powers over criminal investigations to Eurojust and the Court of Justice. These are matters that go to the heart of the powers of the nation state. People elect governments to protect them from internal and external threats to security. If governments give away these powers and deny themselves the flexibility they need to contain threats to security, all in the name of European integration, people will rightly judge this as simply another attempt by Brussels to intervene in their domestic affairs. The case for harmonisation has not been made and the evidence that qualified majority voting will make us safer and more secure is not there. So, I urge the Presidency not to pursue this course.

    I hope the Presidency will work closely with President Barroso on the economic reform agenda. There is no room for complacency here. The drive to make Europe more competitive does not begin and end with Summit conclusions. The need for reform is as urgent as ever and I hope the Presidency will champion the kind of liberalising, reformist economic agenda that I have long urged. The protectionists and those who champion the outdated concept of national champions are still with us – I hope the Prime Minister and his Presidency will resist them.

    I also want the Presidency to sort out the vexed question of the seat of the European Parliament. We have been in the forefront of the campaign to end the Strasbourg sessions. Having two seats is expensive, wasteful and a major burden on taxpayers. Over half a million people have already signed the petition to end Strasbourg, including myself and my British Conservative colleagues. We must have some action on the matter.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2010 Speech on Europe

    Below is the text of the speech made by Timothy Kirkhope on 18th March 2010.

    The General Election is going to be about trust.

    Who can be trusted to drive forward Britain’s economic recovery – the party responsible for the crisis, or the party which, when last in office, left Britain with its strongest economy for over two generations?

    Who can be trusted to reform our public services – the party which has simply thrown money, so-called “targets”, and ever increasing bureaucracy at our hospitals, our schools, and our police forces, or the party which believes in reforming the public sector by encouraging public choice and empowering local professionals?

    Who can be trusted to defend our national security – the party which has let our armed forces down in not providing the means they needed to defend our interests in action overseas, or the party which will always respect their needs and value their commitment to the safety of our nation.

    And so it is with Europe. The public needs a government which can be trusted to promote Britain’s national interests in the European Union by advancing its ideas clearly and firmly, and engaging constructively with our fellow members to develop the kind of Europe the public wants: a European Union which can earn their respect and merit their confidence.

    The fact is that during the 13 years of this government, public support for our membership of the European Union has fallen, it is lower now then when they took office. That is a sad indictment of their record in Europe. For all the sound-bites and soft words, the Government hasn’t delivered in Europe and the public knows it.

    The Government simply hasn’t offered clear or consistent leadership:

    – To the British public they pledged to defend the British rebate and to get reform in Europe, whilst in Brussels they sacrificed part of the rebate in return for the offer of a ‘review’ of the CAP – a very expensive review.

    – In Brussels time and again they have bent over backwards to accommodate the demands of other members to prove they are ‘good Europeans’, whilst indulging in macho posturing in the British media, puffing up the strength of their negotiating positions and the importance of their so-called ‘red lines’.

    – They agreed enthusiastically to sign up to the Lisbon Treaty but, rather than have the courage of his supposed convictions, the British Prime Minister invented excuses so he could arrive late in order to miss the official signing ceremony, and then he told us it didn’t really matter as the Treaty was just a tidying up exercise and that most of the substantial changes didn’t really apply to us anyway.

    – And, in the ultimate betrayal, the Government told the British people they would have a chance to vote in a referendum on the Constitution and then, when such referendums proved difficult to win, they agreed with the other member states to re-package the Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty to avoid the need for a vote. They had the power and opportunity to call a referendum and by failing to honour their promise on the pretext of a shabby re-branding exercise, a precious opportunity was lost forever when the treaty was finally ratified.

    No wonder the public no longer trusts Labour on Europe. And nor do our European allies. They can see through a government which tries to be euro-sceptic in the Sun newspaper but is predominantly euro-federalist in Brussels.

    What Britain now needs is to earn the respect of our European partners by engaging constructively in the debate with a consistent approach. Under a Conservative Government, our partners may not always like what we have to say but at least they will always be able to trust what we say.

    We do not propose to re-launch yet another tedious institutional debate. Europe has wasted enough time on institutional wrangling over recent years. Instead we want Europe to focus on the real issues that matter to people. We will nonetheless put in place certain safeguards for the future and pursue measures to mitigate the worst aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.

    At home,

    – we will make all future treaty changes which include any transfer of powers to the European Union subject to a referendum.

    – We will ensure that none of the so-called ‘ratchet’ clauses in the Treaty which could result in the abolition of vetoes and the transfer of powers could be invoked without parliamentary approval.

    – And we share the view of the German Federal Constitutional Court that any delegation of powers to the European Union must be in accordance with constitutions of the sovereign member states from which it derives its authority to act and that, as a consequence, the rights of domestic democratic institutions must be respected. So we will enact a Sovereignty Bill so that this principle can be upheld in the context of our own constitutional arrangements.

    In Europe,

    – we will seek a full opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights – which strayed far beyond a simple statement of core rights and became a wish-list for many different special interests.

    – We will defend the integrity and independence of our Criminal Justice System through an additional protocol.

    – And we will assert the principle of subsidiarity in key areas of social and employment legislation we believe are damaging to the British economy.

    During the course of the life-time of the next government, there will be sufficient opportunities to realize these objectives: minor treaties are enacted for enlargements, changes to the size of the European Parliament, and so forth which could all be used as vehicles for the some of the amendments we seek.

    But beyond this package, an incoming Conservative government will have an ambitious programme for European reform.

    The European Union has an important part to play in supporting economic recovery. The European Commission has just published its Agenda 2020 initiative for driving forward the European economy. There is much in this we would support. We want to develop the internal market further, remove remaining barriers to trade.

    Europe is a vital player in reaching a sensible and balanced package of measures in managing the challenge of climate change.

    Within the Union itself over the next few years key policies will be subject to scrutiny and must be reformed: a new budget in the medium-term framework from 2014 has to be agreed, as will policies on agriculture, regional policy, research, and fisheries. There is a lot at stake.

    It is because we want to reinforce this drive for reform that  last year we launched our European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament. We seek to build:

    – a Europe which respects the rights of its member states and the diversity of its peoples;

    – a Europe which is committed to government with a light touch where the burdens of taxation and regulation are minimised;

    – a Europe which is firm in its support for the transatlantic alliance.

    We want a more open and transparent European Union which acts only where it can add value in a proportionate and effective way.

    We may not be one of the two biggest groups in the European Parliament. But even the biggest of the seven groups in the Parliament only has about one third of its members. Everything has to be negotiated – every vote, every report, every appointment. We are playing our full part in these negotiations. Indeed now that we are free to articulate our vision for Europe and offer our proposals for reform with clarity and vigour, we are able maximise our impact on the Parliament’s work.

    It is simply not the case that ‘influence’ is dependent on being part of a big group.

    Let me give an example from just last week. The Socialist Group called for all US nuclear missiles to be removed from Europe – regardless of any political, military or strategic arguments. And its Labour members? Well, they split three ways!  The majority were opposed to the Socialist Group amendment but they were powerless to stop it. Powerless – so much for all their talk about ‘influence’. On a question of such importance they were left on the sidelines, most of them quietly abstaining in the hope no-one would notice.

    Being part of a big group is not a free ticket to influence. As everyone who really understands the European Parliament appreciates, you influence decisions by the strength and consistency of your message, by having a seat at the table, and by building networks of influence. So let me ask three key questions:

    – Where are Labour in the Parliament’s governing body, the Conference of Presidents? They are never there. As Deputy Leader of our Group I frequently represent it at the Conference.

    – Where are Labour in the crucial meetings of rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, the people responsible for drafting reports? Labour are only there if they are lucky. Conservative members, as the biggest delegation in our new group, are present more often than not.

    – How strong is the influence of Labour members with the Commission? After being dragged along by their Socialist allies in a doomed attempt to unseat the President of Commission, Mr Barroso – an initiative which failed largely thanks to the decisive votes of our Group – they are not regarded as natural partners of the new Commission either. We, on the other hand, are well connected to the Commission at the most senior levels.

    Our opponents, in the face of this reality, have tried with increasing desperation to smear our members and you heard more of that tonight – despite the all the evidence – by distorting and twisting comments, often comments they themselves know cannot be substantiated.

    For example, in a recent Labour leaflet attacking the ECR, the text consists largely of accusations covered by the phrase ‘it is said that’, or ‘allegedly’, or ‘reportedly’ – a word used no less than 14 times!

    But endlessly re-cycling a Labour Party press release does not make for a coherent or credible response.

    And, more worryingly, it is damaging our relationships with some of our partners particularly in the newer Member States

    By all means attack us for our beliefs, for our policies, or for our objectives. But such smears should have no part to play in our politics.

    It seems that Labour, in their increasing desperation, have resorted to such tactics.

    Frankly, it is pathetic – even tragic.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the priorities for an incoming Conservative Government are to minimise any possible damage arising from the Lisbon Treaty and to work with our partners in driving forward a credible reform agenda:

    – We need a European Union which delivers where the British people and indeed all the peoples of Europe expect it to act: in building a dynamic economy, in dealing with climate change, and in promoting global trade;

    – a European Union which embraces reform of key policy areas such as agriculture and fisheries.

    – a European Union which delivers value for money, respecting the rights of its member states.

    It is an ambitious agenda but success is vitally important in the interests of the British people and indeed of the whole of Europe.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2010 Speech to the 1922 Committee

    Below is the text of the speech made by Timothy Kirkhope, the then Leader of the Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, to the 1922 Committee on 13th January 2010.

    Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to the 1922 committee again in my capacity as leader of our MEPs.

    I want to pay tribute to their hard work and express to you my happiness that we again won the European elections in June when we had the largest number of MEPs elected.

    I also want to thank both William Hague and Mark Francois for all their help and advice they have given me personally and for their support for our activities in pressing the Conservative cause in Brussels.

    New group

    Sir Michael, let me say a few words about our new group: the European Conservatives and Reformists which was successfully formed in July last year and which now holds a pivotal position in the Parliament and the negotiations and discussions with the European Commission & Council.

    We were told that to leave the EPP-ED alliance would lead to a loss of influence in the European Parliament and that we would become a marginal and irrelevant small group on the fringes of the Parliament.

    The Labour Party is still pushing this line but the evidence shows that this is completely the reverse of the truth.

    Combining the votes of the ECR, EPP and Liberal groups (many of whose members are liberal as in the classical sense – not like our UK liberals here) we have a clear majority to outvote the left. The EPP knows this and on key issues it has turned to us and asked for support: the re-election of José-Manuel Barroso as President of the Commission was an example of how we used our votes to good effect. Mr Barroso did not get our votes too easily though. He came to our Group first, before any other group, to explain his policies and took very searching questions. Then we supported him. Similarly we have worked with others on the centre right to prevent the efforts of the left to get the parliament involved in domestic Italian politics, we defeated measures to add additional burdens of further employment legislation, and on a number of occasions in votes we have made the difference between progress and reform, and backward steps towards socialism and federalism.

    Paradoxically, being the largest delegation in the ECR our influence with the EPP is actually greater now than if we had stayed inside.

    And we hold a vital committee chairmanship: Malcolm Harbour presides over the Internal Market Committee. Under the old alliance we chaired the Agriculture Committee with Neil Parish who hopefully will be joining you shortly.

    We have a blend of experience and new blood that gives us a powerful voice in key committees – from past Committee Chairmen such as Struan Stevenson who leads on fisheries, and Giles Chichester with Industry and Energy, to new members now dramatically making their mark such as Kay Swinburne and Vicky Ford on economic affairs where they have particular expertise. The quality and hard work of our delegation has an important impact on the Parliament. This matters as Parliament is no longer the talking shop it was in 1979; you will know that it is now a full co-legislator alongside the Council. So it is vital we have a strong voice promoting Conservative ideas and defending British interests.

    With the realistic prospect of a Conservative government in a few weeks time, this is more important than ever and a new government working with our new group will get even better results for Britain and Europe. Over the next few years key policies come up for review: a new budget in the medium-term framework from 2014 has to be agreed, and also new reform packages for agriculture, regional policy, research, and the discredited common fisheries policy. There is a lot at stake.

    One party

    Sir Michael, we strongly support the ‘one party’ vision of David Cameron – whether we are Conservative representatives in Westminster, Edinburgh, Leeds or Brussels, we are one party. We have a shared responsibility for the Conservative ‘brand’ – to enhance its reputation and credibility at all levels of government.

    To this end we maintain regular contact with the party to share information and develop policy. Our delegation was involved in the preparation of the party’s response to the deeply disappointing result of the Irish referendum and the subsequent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

    Given that the government had shamelessly betrayed its public pledge to hold a referendum on the treaty, we agree that our energies must be devoted to initiatives in areas where we can still make a difference and move on. Although, as you know, two of our members felt the need to withdraw from the frontbench, the delegation as a whole is steadfastly behind David Cameron’s European policy.

    We are working closely with the shadow front bench teams – over the next few weeks, for example, we will receive in Brussels visits from the Home Office, business, and international development teams. It is vital that the party speaks with one voice here in Westminster, in – we hope – the European Council and Council of Ministers shortly, and in the European Parliament.

    Expenses & lobbying

    One area where we are working hard to reinforce the Party’s message is in pursuing the highest standards in public life. Both our institutions have had, to say the least, difficulties over recent years. We are trying to fix them. Our delegation has now introduced rigorous but practical new policies for recording online our expenses and as of 1st January contacts with lobbyists.

    We know that in truth the vast majority of our elected members in both places have always demonstrated integrity and probity but the public now needs the reassurance that only full transparency can deliver. We have taken decisive steps to ensure that this expectation is met.

    At the start of a critical year for our country, we look forward to working closely with you as we campaign for the election of a Conservative Government. We will do our best to help you and our PPCs to obtain a resounding victory. And beyond that, we look forward to playing our full part in working with the new Government in delivering for Britain in Europe.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2005 Speech on the Treaty of Lisbon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Timothy Kirkhope to the Spring European Council in Strasbourg on 13th April 2005.

    Mr President,

    The March Summit was supposed to be about relaunching the Lisbon agenda. Sadly, it will go down in history as a ‘fudged’ summit. An apparent assault on liberal economics by the French President and others was not an edifying sight. He was quoted as calling the liberalisation of Europe’s economies as “the new communism of our age”. If true, this was an extraordinary remark. Any attempt to undermine our Services Directive is sadly a clear sign that the anti-reform forces in Europe remain active and disruptive.

    Mr Barroso said recently: “Some people think the European Commission is there to protect the 15 against the new 10 – it is not”. He is absolutely right. The Services Directive is a fundamental building block of a successful, dynamic economy. Those who seek to undermine the progress of the Internal Market in this way do no service to the millions of unemployed in their countries. On the contrary, as the new Member States have demonstrated so clearly in recent years, liberalising economies are the successful job-creating economies. The so-called “European Social Model” has assumed such a significance among some nations in Europe that it seems almost impossible to undertake reform.

    I am afraid that this model, whatever merits it may have had in former times, is now the “Achilles heel” of Europe’s economy. It has perpetuated high unemployment – 19 million unemployed at the last count – fostered an anti-enterprise culture and every day that it remains unreformed, the competitiveness of China, the USA and India increases to our disadvantage.

    As I have told him, I believe that Mr Barroso is sincere in his drive to get the reforms required, but he has been badly let down by the Heads of Government, including the British Prime Minister, whose “short-termism” has made it more difficult for the President of the Commission to make progress.

    There were some items in the conclusions we can welcome, in particular, the commitment to sustainable development and the Kyoto Protocol. However, the heavy-handed tactics of some leaders trying to put a brake on economic reform and playing games with an increasingly discredited stability and growth pact serves as a timely reminder to the peoples of Europe that their interests are being sacrificed to the short-term political interests of a few recalcitrant governments.