Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Jul 2008 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		Speech to American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Conference Seattle - July 31 2004 Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen It is a huge honour, and a huge pleasure, to be here to speak to you today, and I say that not as a mere conventional courtesy, but as a heartfelt affirmation. To understand why I feel so strongly, you need to know a little about the European parliament where I spend my working life. The European project, and the European institutions, are run by a political élite who are hooked on Jean Monet's fifty-year-old dream of a united Europe, but are increasingly out of touch with the opinions and aspirations of ordinary people. They talk the language of peace, freedom, justice, the rule of law, and democracy, yet the Europe they are creating is profoundly undemocratic, even anti-democratic. So we have a paradox. How can an elected member of the European parliament, assert that the EU is anti-democratic? The fact is that Members of the European parliament, although voted into office, are in a vital sense self-selected. Traditionally, only those who were passionately committed to the European ideal cared to offer themselves for selection, and although a few of us, myself and my colleagues, are cut from different cloth, still the great majority of EU parliamentarians are passionate integrationists. This gives rise to a vast disjunction between the EU institutions, and public opinion. At almost every test, the public show their reluctance for integration. In 1992, the Danes in their referendum voted against the Maastricht treaty, and were told to go away and vote again until they got the right answer. The French admittedly voted Yes, but by a margin of less than one percent. Across Europe, opinion polls show growing dissatisfaction with the EU project. In Germany, for example, there has never been an opinion poll favouring the euro, but their leaders took them into it anyway. Participation in European elections has declined steadily for decades. And the political ethos of the EU is the very antithesis of the Jeffersonian principles which you in ALEC hold in such high regard. The founding paradigm of the EU is big government, big welfare, high taxes, all accompanied by paralysing levels of prescriptive and intrusive regulation. And the EU's philosophy implicitly rejects the nation-state, and is designed to dissolve proud and ancient nations into new supra-national structures. The EU's social model is draining the life-blood of European economies. They have a mountain of employment protection legislation, yet unemployment is at historic levels in France and Germany, and growth is derisory. Investment goes elsewhere. And the new euro currency adds to the problem. Here in the USA, Alan Greenspan has done an excellent job in delivering growth, stability and low inflation, and he has done so by using the tools of monetary policy and interest rates. But European nations have denied themselves those tools. By creating a common currency, with common monetary policy over diverse economies, they ensure that they have the wrong interest rates for most countries, most of the time. They reach for the economic levers to pull themselves out of recession, only to find that the levers are no longer there. The EU talks bravely about developing a competitive knowledge-based economy, but the reality is very different. The European economies are facing long-term relative decline under the triple pressures of obese governance, monetary rigidity and the demographic time-bomb. By contrast we British Conservatives subscribe to Jeffersonian principles -- only we call them Thatcherism! So as you may well imagine, we are seen in Brussels as an eccentric minority, a voice crying in the wilderness. As a politician, I have made a point of reflecting the views of the people I represent -- not just for electoral reasons, but because I happen to agree with them. So at home in England, in political meetings and public houses, I find a wide measure of agreement on the European question. But in Brussels, it often feels like pushing water up-hill. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, I am so pleased to be here. It is a huge pleasure to be amongst people who are proud to call themselves conservative, who believe in liberty and responsibility and enterprise and limited government. It is refreshing to leave the stuffy statism of Brussels for a few days, and to breathe the bracing air of freedom. There have been major developments in the EU in recent weeks which could have a huge impact on its future direction. In the European elections in June, parties opposed to EU integration made great strides. In the UK, a fringe single-issue party called U K I P, the UK Independence Party, came from nowhere to gain around 17% of the vote, and a dozen of the UK's 78 euro-MPs. In May, the largest ever enlargement of the EU took place, with ten new countries joining. These countries, mostly from Central and Eastern Europe, had been under Soviet domination for decades. While they wanted to join the EU, they certainly do not want to find themselves subjected to a new domination from Brussels. It is by no means clear that the peoples of Europe are prepared to settle any longer for the integrationist project of "ever closer union". The proposed new Constitution for the EU could become the focus for resistance. The plan was to replace the long accretion of EU treaties with a new, clear document. It's so clear that it runs to 360 pages of turgid prose. It's important to understand that in key respects the proposed EU Constitution is more centralising than the US Constitution. Far from creating a federal state, it seeks to create a single, unitary state. And the alarm bells are ringing across our continent. In the UK, my Party, along with others, fought a long campaign to demand a referendum on the proposed Constitution, and our Labour government was finally forced to concede. France has also announced a referendum, Germany is talking seriously about the idea. It seems that at least ten states, perhaps more, will put the Constitution to a referendum, and as things stand a NO in any country could bring the project down, possibly forcing a major restructuring of the EU. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the USA was keen to promote unification in Europe, and for a clear and honourable reason: twice in the first half of the twentieth century, America expended huge amounts of blood and treasure to solve European problems. Rightly, you wanted to be sure that it didn't happen again. Equally, American political leaders wanted to get a handle on Europe. As Kissinger famously asked "When I want to talk to Europe, who do I call?". Sadly, however, life is not that simple. Europe is not a single entity, and the currents of divergence may well be about to derail the integration project. Donald Rumsfeld was vilified for his characterisation of "Old Europe" and "New Europe", yet the phrase immediately passed into common use, because it sums up the contrast between the old, inward-looking continental Europe, and the new Europe, including Britain and most of the accession states, who are much more globalist and Atlanticist in outlook. Why should this matter to America? Because in much of Old Europe, there are strong currents of anti-Americanism. These have been aggravated by the current US administration's assertive foreign policy. I and many of my colleagues admire and endorse President Bush's war on terror. But the Chancelleries of Paris and Berlin take a different view. They think of the transatlantic relationship not so much in terms of co-operation and friendly competition, as in terms of challenge and confrontation. They plan for a separate European defence capability outside NATO to "counter-balance" American dominance -- although they seem curiously reluctant to pay for it. They see the euro currency less as an economic measure, more as a political device to challenge the dollar's global position. Let me give you a practical example of the problems we face. America's Global Positioning System is vital to modern navigation and communication, and you generously make it available free-of-charge to the rest of the world. But it also has a vital strategic significance. You can deny GPS access to any opponent in a shooting war, so it makes a critical contribution to US battlefield dominance. But the EU has now decided to launch its own, parallel system, called Gallileo. We don't need it, because you have generously given us access to your system. It will be hugely expensive, and will merely duplicate existing US facilities. It is in a sense merely a macho political gesture. The US has a global currency, so we have to have one. The US has a GPS system, so we have to have one. The problem is that the EU has co-opted both Russia and China as partners in the project. Imagine a future confrontation, in the Taiwan Straits, say, where America seeks to deny China use of its own GPS, only to find that China is using the European system. The EU's Gallileo system could destabilise the strategic situation. It could damage defence and intelligence co-operation between the UK and the USA.. And it may force us Brits to choose between the USA and Europe as our strategic partners. I pray that we make the right choice. I have brought with me a few copies of a critical paper on Gallileo by my friend and colleague Dr. Richard North, and I should be happy to offer a copy to anyone concerned about the issue. Ladies and gentlemen, you will have gathered that I am strongly supportive of US positions on a range of issues. You are right on the War on Terror, on Kyoto, on the International Criminal Court. So I hope you will forgive me if I raise my concerns on one aspect of US policy. This administration is urging us to fast-track Turkey's application to join the EU. Turkey is seen as a key NATO ally, the lynch-pin of NATO's eastern flank, so the US is keen to lock them in. EU membership seems, in US terms, a cheap and easy way to do that. If we had the kind of EU that I should like to see -- essentially a free-trade-area -- then I should be very happy for Turkey to join. Indeed Turkey already has a trade deal with the EU. But the EU is much more than that. It means open borders and the free movement of people. Worse yet, it means that EU member states make the laws that affect me and my countrymen in England. And they make them by majority voting. Turkey is a country with a totally different history, culture and religion from my own. I may respect the Turkish people, but I don't want them to make the laws that govern me in my country. On current demographic trends, Turkey may have the highest population -- and therefore the biggest voting weight -- in the EU in a couple of decades. Let me give you a parallel. Suppose I were to suggest to you that the USA should open its border with Mexico, and allow Mexico a 10% vote in all new US legislation. I suspect you might not agree to do that. Yet that is what the USA is asking us to do with regard to Turkey. That is why I and many of my colleagues are profoundly concerned about the question of Turkish accession. Can I summarise my message to you on Europe. I should like you to take away with you two very clear ideas. First, EU integration may not be a one-way street. There are powerful currents of dissent and opposition. There are serious economic issues. The tectonic plates are starting to crack. Second, further EU integration may not be good for America. The EU should be America's ally, but may end up as a competitor. I would urge a US foreign policy tailored to individual European countries, promoting transatlantic co-operation and a liberal trade environment. It may be more trouble than treating the EU as a single entity, but it will be hugely more rewarding. And a final word directed especially at the paid-up Republicans in the room, who I believe may be in a majority. They tell me you have an election in November. I believe a Kerry Presidency would mean protectionism at home and appeasement abroad. I believe a second Bush term will be good for prosperity and security not only in America, but around the world. I believe it will promote the Jeffersonian values we all cherish. And you guys are in the front line. For heaven's sake, go out and win in November!